Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

The Minister prefaced her description of the legislation by providing an account of how, in her eyes, the issue of the Magdalen laundries has been dealt with by the State and how it and the Government treated the victims and survivors. I take this opportunity to acknowledge that those survivors enjoyed a level of public recognition in respect of the experiences that they underwent, many of them as young girls. The Minister is correct to state that the pathways into the laundries were many and varied. It can also be stated that the experience behind the high walls with which the laundries were bounded was deeply traumatic and involved psychological and physical violence being visited upon the women and girls in question. Any attempt to discount their experience as something that happened in the dim and distant past or that was merely a consequence of the way things were at the time would be very wrong. Equally, any attempt to suggest that society at large did not know what was going on would also be wrong.

We now know that the State actively colluded with these institutions in terms of the committal and incarceration of women and girls. In many instances in which individuals made valiant efforts to escape, the State connived in returning them to the institutions in question. The Minister and I share a common analysis with regard to what happened. It is only fair that, on a personal level, I acknowledge her commitment in respect of the issues under discussion. Where she and I part company is in the context of her assertion to the effect that the McAleese report represented a comprehensive and full, fair and frank assessment of the facts relating to the laundries. The report did no such thing. I say that not by way of criticism of the former Senator McAleese but more by way of criticism of the Government that established the process by means of which he produced his report. The process in question was deliberately narrow and restrictive. In the view of victims and survivors, it led to the production of an report which was deeply flawed and which sought - deliberately or otherwise - to almost play down the scale and significance of their experiences. The criticisms levelled at the report have been echoed at the United Nations. The latter does not regard either the McAleese process or the report to which it gave rise as representing an adequate response on the part of the State to the cruel and degrading treatment meted out to these women and girls, who were arbitrarily detained and used as unpaid slave labour.

We find ourselves in something of a bizarre situation. We are dealing with legislation entitled Redress for Women Resident in Certain Institutions Bill, against the backdrop of a continuing degree of denial regarding the scale of what happened in such institutions. The assertion in the McAleese report to the effect that no sexual abuse occurred in these institutions has been the cause of deep unease and anger on the part of some survivors. Those who survive tell a different tale and indicate that examples of such abuse were not isolated or random but were, rather, consistent in nature. We are talking about redress in circumstances where the State and the Government have not yet fully recognised or measured exactly what happened within the institutions in question. Lest there be any misunderstanding, I re-emphasise the fact that neither the Minister nor the Government of which she is a member were responsible for these occurrences. I am not for one moment attempting to have a go at her or anybody else; I am merely setting out the facts as they present themselves.

Any discussion on redress, or the development of any legislation relating thereto, must begin with the firm aim of establishing the full facts. We have not yet reached that point.

See this speech in context