Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Over many decades thousands of women spent time in Magdalen laundries because the State put them there. Thousands more went to the laundries because they had no alternative. They worked and lived in harsh conditions, often deprived of the most basic freedoms. This should not have been allowed. The State failed in its duties towards its citizens and it is right and proper that on behalf of the State and on behalf of society, the Taoiseach has offered a sincere, heartfelt and comprehensive public apology. I commend the Taoiseach's speech and warmly welcome his heartfelt apology. I also warmly welcome and salute the efforts he has made in the past week to engage with and speak to the survivors of these institutions.

The most important part of making such an apology is to understand that it is not the end of dealing with the issue - in many ways, as has been said, it is only the beginning. The State has now acknowledged its role. It has yet to provide a forum where the comprehensive testimonies of survivors can be gathered and their experiences fully understood. It is only now beginning a process of redress.

As I said two weeks ago in the Dáil and as my colleagues said last week, we fully acknowledge the failures of all who participated in public life and did not act to intervene. Earlier consideration should have been given to this issue and there is no doubt that the women of the Magdalen laundries deserved earlier intervention. I accept that steps should have been taken earlier to make this apology. I am sorry that did not happen over the past decade while I was a member of Government - I say that in a heartfelt and genuine way. In terms of the process that has been outlined by the Taoiseach - there will an opportunity to give a more detailed response to that - the specific proposals need to be discussed with the survivors, as has been said. People need to engage with them so that their wishes are respected and their needs addressed.

The apology for the State's gross failures relating to abuse in industrial and reform schools was accompanied by a comprehensive list of measures which had been drawn up after discussions with survivors. They were also amended after further discussions and the process of engagement was permanently maintained. This must also be the case for the survivors of the Magdalen laundries.

Tribute must also be paid to the UN Committee Against Torture which gave very significant momentum to this issue in its investigations of the cases. Dr. Martin McAleese and his interdepartmental committee have produced a good report. I thank him and his team for their work. However, it is not a comprehensive report - it was given necessarily narrow terms of reference. It needs to be more expansive to provide an opportunity to give a voice to the experiences of the women who survived the laundries. It was clearly mandated to answer the basic question of what was the State's involvement in these laundries. The answer is that the laundries were integrated within the State's judicial and social policies. They were not the same as industrial and reform schools, which were funded and operated fully under the legal powers of the State, but thousands of the State's citizens spent time in them because it was the policy of the State and society that they should.

The report has shown a more complex picture of the working of these laundries than many people had previously appreciated. It has been shown that just below 27% of those who lived and worked in the laundries were referred directly by the State in one form or another. However, it would be deeply wrong to say that we can therefore ignore the other 73% of the women. What the report refers to as the "secrecy, silence and shame" which characterised these laundries was not limited to the women who were there because of a direct action of the State. This was a broader societal issue within which the State colluded.

As the report points out, Magdalen asylums first appeared in the mid-18th century. They were not uniquely Irish or Catholic institutions - in fact other religions which put an earlier emphasis on what was viewed as moral probity took the lead. The very use of Magdalen was intended to convey the idea of working to reform supposedly "fallen" women. They were found in Europe, America and Australia. Institutions on the basic model of these laundries were in place here by the middle of the 19th century. Through a range of different routes, women found themselves in these laundries where they were marked as unsuitable for wider society. That was an era of a state which showed no interest in even the basic welfare and rights of citizens. However, this system was allowed to survive well into the second half of the 20th century. While much progress was seen in promoting the welfare and rights of the wider society, these women were excluded. They continued to live and work in conditions which were morally unacceptable and should have been stopped.

The report references a number of detailed academic studies on the laundries in the 19th century. When these are set against the report's figures for the post-1922 period, it is impossible not to be struck by the fact that the figures are almost the same for how women came to be in the laundries.

It has been said that these laundries formed part of “inherited networks of social control” at the foundation of the State. That is clearly true. Where the new State failed was in not only leaving many of these institutions in place but strengthening them. It is hard not to be shocked by the contents of the 1928 Report of the Commission on the Relief of the Sick and Destitute Poor, the recommendations of which are based not on the idea that the State could not afford a new policy but on a twisted morality which sought to keep alive what can only be described as savage ideas. It proposed that women spend one year in a Magdalen laundry or similar institution for every pregnancy out of wedlock and referred to the need to segregate those who have become sources of evil, danger and expense to the community. The laundries were not therefore just a place for so-called "fallen’"women or those who got into some form of trouble with the law rather they were at times the place for women for whom the State had no place or concern. The role played by poverty and class is unmistakable.

The manner in which these laundries were established, named, written about, built and operated and the role which wider society viewed them as playing combined to mark the women within their walls as separate. Survivors have talked about how they felt shame. They should never have felt this way. The shame was on a State and a society which excluded them.

This is a good report. However, I would suggest that one of the weaknesses of it is that it has been prepared within narrow terms of reference. While as a result of it the role of the State has been clarified and articulated, we need to do more to give a stronger and more expansive voice to the Magdalen survivors. The presentation of legal and statistical information without the testimonies of the survivors is clearly inadequate. For example, many survivors have spoken of abuse within these institutions. Some feel their stories have not been fully captured.

Over the last decade, survivor groups and others have done an immense amount of work to gather testimonies. Many of these have been made publicly available. They are detailed, emotional and convincing. They deserve to be much more widely read, and equally deserve to be collected and published by the State as part of a more comprehensive report on the laundries. It is right that programmes of individual support be offered to the survivors. As the Taoiseach said, there are different needs and circumstances, all of which require different responses. The Health Service Executive should be directed to establish a dedicated counselling service. We are all agreed that simply acknowledging this issue is not adequate.

It is important to note the statement in this report that no cases of abuse were identified. It could be argued that this was inevitable because of the lack of power or resources to seek out a comprehensive picture in this regard. In contrast, the Ryan commission, which had such powers and resources and was able to engage with survivors on a confidential and respectful basis, states that there were cases of abuse in the laundries and that women placed therein from other institutions had experienced tough conditions including, "continuous hard physical work". I believe the State should commission and sponsor significant further work to ensure that every survivor is offered the opportunity to give her testimony and that this should be studied and made publicly available. As has been said, the State should in addition engage with survivors on the issue of a permanent memorial.

There is no doubt that compensation is owed, including unpaid wages. There is also a need for an acknowledgement of the unacceptable conditions to which the State and society confined women over a lengthy period. However this is to be done, it must not I agree be adversarial. In addition to the process outlined by the Taoiseach, the Government should in my opinion establish a special unit in the Department of Justice and Equality which would have responsibility for co-ordinating the State’s response to the women in the areas of social protection, health and education. This would be a significant action that would give the women practical assistance in the short term.

During compilation of the McAleese report the four religious orders who ran the laundries co-operated fully in relation to records. Some gave stronger apologies than others. These orders should be asked to give unequivocal apologies for their part in the treatment of these women and, if possible, should contribute to the redress of the women. It is only fair that this happens.

It is important that as a society we learn from the mistakes of the past. I welcome the apology that the Taoiseach has given to the women on behalf of the State and its citizens. This is only the first step. There should a consensus that more needs to be done to ensure that the women receive adequate redress and steps should be taken to acknowledge the women who did not get an opportunity to take part in the McAleese report. I welcome the inclusion in the process, which will shortly commence, into the Stan Hope Street and Summerhill laundries. The women incarcerated in these laundries want their testimonies heard. I welcome that they are to be facilitated.

I look forward to working with Government and examining its response to this issue in the coming weeks and months. I sincerely hope that the groups representing the women and highlighting this issue for many years are satisfied. They should be commended for their work. As stated by the Tánaiste, over the last decade we have unearthed a great deal about Irish society, many of our institutions and many strands of Irish life since the foundation of the State. Much of what we have learned about how Irish society organised itself is not a pretty picture, in particular the dominance of institutionalism in caring for people who were poor and their failure to provide these people with a decent quality of life and, more important, with basic social and human rights which were their entitlement.

See this speech in context