Charlie McConalogue (Donegal North East, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I commend my party colleague, Deputy Calleary, and our justice spokesperson, Deputy Niall Collins, on bringing forward this motion. I also commend the dedicated work and personal commitment of Dr. Martin McAleese in putting this report together at very little cost to the State. I believe the testimony of those women who suffered in the Magdalen laundries, parts of whose lives were blighted by that experience and many of whom were scarred for years. They had a great burden to deal with and overcome as they went about their lives. It is appropriate that this motion is before us tonight. I heard the comments of the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, when he questioned our bringing forward this motion, as he questioned our last Private Members' motion on the closure of Garda stations.

For those women who suffered, not only because of their experience but also because for many years no one listened to them, the report was a significant watermark in their lives and their fight for justice, but the way it was handled in this House and the Taoiseach's response was not his finest moment and not appropriate. It made publication of the report more difficult for the survivors of the Magdalen laundries. It is, therefore, entirely appropriate that we discuss the matter tonight because we felt that we should address the way it was handled and an opportunity should be taken to make a full and proper apology to the survivors. The Taoiseach met them in the past couple of days and that was positive. I hope that when it comes to be debated here again next week, an apology will be forthcoming and wholehearted. That could have been done tonight but the fact that Dáil time was given to the matter this week was important.

Some of the key findings of the McAleese report are harrowing. He has brought statistical definition to what took place by quantifying the number of women who experienced the Magdalen laundries at 10,000 since 1922. The routes of entry for 8,000 are known, 26% of them, significantly, being State referrals. The average age at entry was just under 24 and 61% stayed less than a year.

There were five key principle areas in which Dr. McAleese found State involvement. These were the routes by which the girls and women entered the laundries, the regulation of them as workplaces, State inspections of the laundries, State funding and financial assistance of them and the registration of deaths, burials and exhumations. The committee found the laundries were, as workplaces, subject to the Factories Acts. Accordingly, they were inspected in the same way and to the same extent as commercial and non-religious operated laundries. Although the State did not direct or inspect the overall management of the laundries, apart from the workplace inspections, State oversight or follow-up in the cases of these women occurred in many other ways. An example of this was that the committee found consistent evidence that in cases where girls or women were referred for probation by social services, there was follow-up with probation officers and social workers. It was found there were payments under the Public Assistance Acts whereby the State provided subventions for certain individual women placed there by local authorities. There were more generalised payments under the Health Acts in recognition of the laundries performing work the State was endorsing.

For these reasons alone, it is only right and proper the State would apologise for its role in this. This is a reflection, unfortunately, of a time when the State's actions and involvement in other aspects of life did not meet expected standards. We know of too many instances where the State failed its citizens, not just in the case of these laundries, but in educational institutions and mental health facilities as well. The fact these laundries continued up to the mid-1990s is an indication that we cannot absolve ourselves of responsibility for them. There are facilities today which are not deserving of our citizens, particularly some of our residential institutions for people with severe disabilities. I know of one facility where people with profound disabilities are in dormitories with up to seven and eight people. We are still awaiting the full HIQA, Health Information and Quality Authority, regulations to be applied to many of these facilities. There are still legacy issues in parts of our public services which need to be addressed.

I urge the Taoiseach next week during the wider debate on the Magdalen laundries to give a full apology on behalf of the State. I hope we will put in place a structure to ensure supports are provided for the some 1,000 survivors of the laundries to make their lives comfortable, as well as showing reparation and penance for the State not looking after them in a way it should have done.

See this speech in context