Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

This has always been a sensitive matter. For more than 60 years nothing was done about this. Government after Government, some including my party, did nothing about this. We have done something about it. The first thing those women wanted when I met them was a sense of righteousness that the State would apologise for what happened. Second, because of their circumstances and their ages, they wanted put in place a system that was non-litigious and non-adversarial, and that would be quick, efficient and deliver a conclusion and solution for the women. To arrive at that, the McAleese report was important, as was the report of Mr. Justice Quirke. The solution is there.

We cannot do the scheme without the help of the religious orders because they have all the records about who worked, who attended and who lived in the laundries. The scheme was not contingent upon a 50-50 principle or upon a forced contribution from the religious orders. The Government set out to do something about this where nothing had been done for more than 60 years. I would like to think the religious orders would make a contribution. I cannot force them to because the scheme was not designed on that basis. These people do not have time on their side.

In respect of the redress scheme, 18 religious orders are involved. There has been a €1.5 billion payout. The Minister for Education and Skills is involved in discussions with all those religious orders on the basis of a scheme that was drafted on the principle of a 50-50 contribution. He will bring his memorandum to Government next week or the following week in regard to that.

The women told me face to face that time is not on their side. They did not want tribunals and did not want millionaire lawyers emerging from this. They did not want long-term discussions. They wanted a speedy non-litigious effective response and they wanted an apology from the State. That is all in place. We cannot complete this without the religious orders' co-operation in terms of the records, etc. I ask them to reflect on the question of a monetary contribution. I cannot force them to do that. I cannot take away the charitable status as some people have called for. This is an issue they know about themselves.

See this speech in context