In the absence of proper clarification on the fate of the large number of unclaimed records of medically induced injuries held by the Symphysiotomy Payment Scheme, Judge Harding Clark can reasonably proceed to shred evidence of her decisions. The Scheme has yet to clarify exactly what action is being taken or will be taken behind closed doors in the case where women did not return the recent form in which they were asked to indicate whether they wanted their records shredded or returned by the Scheme. What is going to happen to these records? Can Judge Harding Clarke please clarify - does she intend to shred these records? Will they be deposited somewhere? Or returned to the women? Why have these questions not been fully answered to date? Large numbers of women did not return the form issued to them re. Return/Shred and it is widely apparent many women believe return of their records was to happen automatically as per the Scheme's own publicly published terms. Why is the Scheme's intention of return being elided and marginalised with forms sent to the women etc indicating shredding being a viable option? Why are the documents not just being simply swiftly returned? Why is this question widely asked in the public domain in recent weeks not being answered? The absence of a very clear, public statement of intent on unclaimed records, where no form was returned by women who submitted records in good faith, is deeply troubling and damaging. The shredding of documents submitted without any indication of consent from those women who applied would be an utter scandal / injustice. It would also amount to the destruction of and interference with medical evidence. Symphysiotomies are one of the worst examples of a twentieth century human rights abuse/injury to women in childbirth, in Western Europe. The very act of destroying such records sends a terrible message to those who have suffered. Records that destroy such actions should not be destroyed even if they are 'only copies' of original records. In some cases, they are the only copies despite what the Department of Health has said. Originals are part of a schedule of records destruction in Irish hospitals. The Irish State and the Scheme needs to transparently and fully clarify as a matter of urgency, what is happenning to the unclaimed records held in Judge Harding Clarke's office and what her intentions are? The terms of the scheme remain very clear and should be adhered to: "The Assessor shall where reasonably possible arrange for the return to the Applicant or her Solicitor...of any documents submitted." It is more than reasonably possible to return all documents submitted. The failure of the scheme to do so would represent a failure to follow the Scheme's own terms / stated intention to return them where reasonably possible. Destroying records is not wholly necessary or indeed 'right' or justifiable. Supporters of symphysiotomy survivors and numerous experts have written about this issue widely in recent weeks and their informed opinion on the need to halt any conditions in which the records could be destroyed continues to be ignored. This is unacceptable and has caused distress and public outrage. What is the Scheme's intention regarding these unclaimed records? What is the opinion of the Minister for Health? Should he not directly intervene and reassure all concerned, given the conflicting statements issued by the Scheme and Department of Health in recent weeks and the lack of clarity that continues? Any intervention to resolve and clear up this matter would be widely welcomed by a very large constituency of survivors and their families as well as numerous legal, historical etc experts in women's human rights. The lack of clarity has gone on for too long. A directive and decision from the top to return the records is clearly urgently required.