The publication and subsequent media coverage of retired Ms Justice Harding Clark's report into the surgical symphysiotomy ex gratia payment scheme raises fundamental questions about how citizens who pursue justice in cases of historical abuse are treated by the organs of the State. The terms of reference called for the assessor to report to the Minister on the activities and expenditure of the scheme when she had completed the administration of the scheme. In my view, the retired judge took licence with those terms. Whatever about telling us about how she was affected by women sending her poems, it was highly inappropriate of her to comment on ongoing litigation, as there are currently 28 cases before the courts and she has said enough in this report to taint those cases.

The Survivors of Symphysiotomy are calling on the former judge, Ms Justice Maureen Harding Clark, to withdraw false allegations in her report. The report has many flaws, one of which is an allegation that leading symphysiotomy campaigners who said they had symphysiotomies did not, in fact, have them. This is utterly false and untrue.

It is not in order to question the decision of a judge.

This is a report.

There is a separation of powers and the Deputy is breaching that.

It is not a judicial circumstance.

This is a factual report and I am only quoting from it.

Please do not make allegations in respect of the judge.

The report on the scheme, which was overseen by the judge, can only be read as a defence of the uniquely Irish practice of non-emergency symphysiotomy. It serves to diminish survivors' claims that the substitution of non-emergency symphysiotomy for caesarean section without consent, as practised in Ireland, violated many women's human rights. The report deliberately over-emphasised the fact that a number of applicants could not satisfy the judge that symphysiotomy caused lifelong disability. This is not - and never was - the point. Leaving aside the fact that 35% of applicants could prove lifelong disability, the violation carried out on these women during labour is beyond a doubt an infringement of their human rights. Last year, the United Nations Human Rights Committee found that symphysiotomy, as practised in Ireland, constituted torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment in circumstances where patient consent was never sought.

There is a continuing suggestion in this report that survivors were lying, mistaken or deluded about what happened to them. This disgrace is without evidence. There is clearly an attempt to create an impression that the suffering is less than what the survivors claim. Let us not forget that the scheme denied the women a chance to give their oral testimony. Instead of addressing these matters in a mature way, the report serves to diminish the suffering caused. The report undermines and demeans the experience of these women. I believe it is an attempt to undermine the women by concentrating on unsuccessful applicants and brushing over the fact that 70% of applicants applied successfully to the scheme. The scheme's burden of proof made it difficult, if not impossible, for some women to prove their case. It demanded absolute certainty. For unsuccessful women, who have no right of appeal, this report has added insult to injury.

I call for the report to be withdrawn and I request that the Minister also call for it its withdrawal. If not, at least allow a debate in the Dáil on the report to be discussed by the Business Committee. If we can discuss it we can then make a decision on whether the report should be accepted.

I must clarify that it is open to any Member to criticise a report. However, during her contribution, the Deputy raised questions about the judge. She stated that the judge deliberately took licence with the terms of reference. It is not in order to make such an allegation against a judge charged with a particular responsibility.

We have all been touched by the individual stories of women who had horrendous experiences with symphysiotomy. That is the reason the previous Government made a decision in July 2014 that we should not just listen to these stories but do something about them. A very distinguished judge, Ms Justice Maureen Harding Clark, was asked to carry out this report. It was agreed by the Government to establish an ex gratia payment for women who underwent the procedure. We now have a comprehensive overview of the historical and medical context of symphysiotomy. The judge had a unique opportunity to compile this report. Indeed, her findings support the earlier findings of Professor Oonagh Walsh, whose report was published in 2014.

The scheme was approved by the Government in November 2014 and its total cost was just under €34 million. Payments of €50,000, €100,000 or €150,000 were made to almost 400 women. At the time the Government made the decision to commission this report and to set up the scheme many of the women were facing uphill battles in courts. In addition, most of the women were of an older age group, so they faced a very uncertain outcome in this regard.

What we have done has ensured that women who have had a symphysiotomy applied to the scheme. I understand the judge took a very broad approach in terms of whether women could produce evidence so that as many as possible of the women could be included in the scheme. I am sure the Minister for Health would be happy to meet the Deputy to discuss the detail of the report. It is a very comprehensive one, and we consider that it deals with the issues because it provided an alternative and a non-adversarial option for the women, many of whom were elderly and did not want to pursue their cases through the courts. I am sure there would be no difficulty in having a debate on the report in the House. There has been a very thorough examination of the issues in the report and I believe its approach is very fair and comprehensive. As the Deputy said, there are perhaps one or two groups who take issue with the approach in the report but we have accepted its findings and we will stand by that.

Human Rights in Ireland has also challenged the report. I do not know whether the Tánaiste has read its document. I note she is nodding her head indicating that she has. There are serious questions around the report and sweeping strokes were made in part of the report in regard to the women. There is also the fact that none of these women had oral hearings and they have no right to appeal the decision made in this regard.

One woman e-mailed us and she states:

I am a woman who has a symphysiotomy over 40 years ago. I have suffered walking problems and incontinence and a lot of pain for all those years. My husband was and still is the best in the world because he suffered a lot too. Our intimate lives changed from that day. Out of a sense of duty to my husband we did have sex a very odd time and I always felt guilty and a failure. On one of those occasions I became pregnant and lived nine months of fear.

That women is very angry about this report. She is also very angry about comments in the media questioning women's voices and what they went through. There should be a debate on the report in the Dáil at a minimum. If there was vote on it, I would certainly vote to have this withdrawn and the Minister should do so as well.

We all know women suffered some horrendous consequences as a result of having a symphysiotomy. That is why the Government wanted to take as humane and dignified an approach as we possibly could to help these women. As I said, every effort was made in the report by Ms Justice Harding Clarke to do just that.

I believe 185 women applied to the scheme who could not establish that they had a surgical symphysiotomy. It is clear that any report that is written or any inquiry that is set up, and it is a report in this instance, has to have criteria, and the judge was given criteria in the terms of reference. I cannot comment on the individual case but I am sure the records in that case were examined and the appropriate decision taken. In any report, broader issues will arise in terms of context, and the Deputy is raising some of those now. I have no doubt a Dáil debate will provide an opportunity to deal with some of those, but the judge has done a thorough job. I believe it is an excellent job and many of the women have found a resolution that was not there previously.

We move on now to questions on promised legislation.