Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Socialist Party) | Oireachtas source

I welcome to the Gallery any of the families or relatives of survivors of any of these homes. I must start on a negative note. It is a bad sign that the Government saw fit to cut the debate today by an hour and a half. It is not showing sufficient seriousness and I must state the Government benches are not showing sufficient seriousness regarding this matter either. This is part of a legacy of abuse and oppression of women and children in this State. It runs through the Magdalen laundries, the mother and baby homes and other institutions mentioned previously such as Goldenbridge. It runs through the practice, for example, of symphysiotomy when women were butchered while giving birth and the recent practice - not in the dim and distant past - of this State going to court against women who have been abused either at school or in some institution and challenging their cases. This has been evident right up to the present. Moreover, to this one must also add laws, such as the eighth amendment, which equate women with a foetus and do not give women control over their own lives. The common denominator of all these practices is that the State and the church saw fit to take control of the lives and bodies of women and girls. Members must recognise this pattern, which has continued right up to the present and which has not gone away, of a church-ridden and weak capitalist State that allowed the church such absolutely massive power.

As both I and interested groups perceive it, there are major shortcomings in the scheme, which only includes mother and baby homes strictly. The Adoption Rights Alliance, for example, has called on the Government to amend the first clause of the terms of reference to include all institutions where women had babies and where women out of wedlock went to do that. I believe this constitutes piece-by-piece resistance to tackling this real issue. While it has been hinted at previously, the failure to include archaeological investigation of all the sites is of real importance. This has been brought to light already in the past year by Catherine Corless, who rightly has been commended earlier. In many cases, it is known that these institutions were the scenes of crimes. If it is known that crimes were carried out - premature deaths of babies took place at a much higher rate than the national average - consequently these people deserve investigation as to what happened to those babies. Furthermore, one cannot rely on records in the institutions to tell the story of what happened to the babies because that would be taking the word of the religious orders as being absolutely valid and trustworthy. However, Members are aware this is not the case. Many records have been destroyed and what is needed is a forensic medical examination of what in many cases are mass graves. This was evident in Tuam but there are other institutions as well. I suspect the main reason such investigations are not included is because of the cost. It would cost the State a huge amount of money to do that but this is an absolutely cancerous episode in our history, albeit one of many, and it must be investigated.

The Irish First Mothers Group, which is a group of women who were victims of the mother and baby homes, also has pointed out that justice and redress are not mentioned directly in the terms of reference. Will any perpetrators be prosecuted after this commission investigates? Will any of the religious orders with connections to these homes be brought to answer in any way? Will there be proper medical and financial compensation for the victims of these homes? It is hard to escape the conclusion arrived at by this group, which is that what is envisaged is minimalist redress, symphysiotomy-style, that will be on an ex gratiabasis. Women will be obliged to agree if they want any kind of compensation for the misery caused to them on behalf of these institutions and the State, which in many cases paid for or knew of their care. How hopeful can Members be when the Magdalen survivors have not been dealt with properly, as one has read in the newspapers only within the past two days? One Magdalen survivor, who I have met at a number of meetings, is dying of lung cancer. Survivors have asked that the coalition would deliver on the high profile promises that were made. The Taoiseach, Deputy Enda Kenny, got very emotional in the Dáil Chamber but it has come to light lately that they still have not got what they need. How seriously are Members to take the Government's efforts to deal with the mother and baby homes? For example, the National Women's Council of Ireland has pointed out that the current Bill relating to the Magdalen women is a "denial of the rights of women survivors of the...laundries". It undermines the scheme as proposed by Mr. Justice Quirke and provides only minimal recognition for the abuse that woman suffered. If this is the pattern for the Magdalen women, can the women of the mother and baby homes and their surviving descendants expect any better from the Government? I conclude by reiterating that I view this as part of a pattern in which the State and the church colluded in the oppression of women and children and girls in particular, denying them control of their own sexuality and future. The State needs to listen to these groups and to respond accordingly.

See this speech in context