Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left) | Oireachtas source

It is almost two years since the Taoiseach stood here and apologised to the women of the Magdalen laundries. There are many of us who remember that day - the hope evident and the good spirits of the women in the Gallery, knowing and understanding that it was not a case that the wrong that had been carried out against them would be righted but at least there had been an acknowledgement by the State that it should not have happened and from then on, respect and dignity that they deserved would be delivered.

Some of the points made by the Minister yesterday, about such matters as access to the scheme and getting the lump sums so that it is provided smoothly enough, are broadly true. It has gone some way to make redress, but is that not really the point? It has only gone some way. It is the absolute bare minimum - the State has been dragged out - to these women. It is not even human rights compliant and even that bare minimum is not being delivered. That is an insult to those women and to people all over this country.

I take issue with the fact the Minister, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, is not here. I mean no disrespect to the Minister of State, Deputy Ó Ríordáin, but these are the opening slots on a vital issue and the Minister has not dignified the Chamber with her presence for them.

I also take issue with the tone and content of some of her remarks yesterday, which were not accurate. They were a little lopsided. They attempted to, maybe, give a sanitised version of what happened and, in doing so, were derogatory to the victims and survivors of these institutions. The Minister listed a broad range of circumstances in which women ended up in the Magdalen laundries. Of course, she was accurate in that regard, referring to women who had nowhere else to go, women who were involved in family disputes, disabled women, and that they were not all unmarried mothers or anything like that, all of which was true.

The Minister tried to say that we should not judge these institutions by today's standards. I have a huge problem with that because it is like stating that it went on, those were different times and they did not know any better. They did know better. A lot of people knew what was going on there and it is not good enough to state that everybody knew and that if everybody knew and those were different times, then nobody is responsible. People must be held responsible for what went on. It is not only me saying that. The United Nations Human Rights Committee forcefully made those points as well. The fundamental mistake the Minister made yesterday was to rely on the McAleese report and put that out there as the historical version of what went on when everybody knows that the McAleese report is a limited report that only looked into the State's involvement in the Magdalen laundries. It did not investigate any allegations of abuse and therefore no perpetrators could be brought to account or anything like that. It is a lopsided version of events. I remind the Minister, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, who was in attendance at the UN Human Rights Committee, of what that committee had to say about Ireland in this regard. On the institutional abuse of women and children it said:

The Committee expresses concern at the lack of prompt, independent, thorough and effective investigations into all allegations of abuse, mistreatment or neglect of women and children in the Magdalene Laundries, children's institutions, and mother and baby homes. It regrets the failure to identify all perpetrators of the violations that occurred, the low number of prosecutions, and the failure to provide full and effective remedies to victims...

It cited that as a breach of Articles 2, 6 and 7 of the Convention. The committee then went on, in bold, to state:

The State party should conduct prompt, independent and thorough investigation into all allegations of abuse in Magdalene Laundries, children's institutions and mother and baby homes, prosecute and punish the perpetrators with penalties commensurate with the gravity of the offence, and ensure that all victims obtain an effective remedy, including appropriate compensation, restitution, rehabilitation and measures of satisfaction.

Here we are today with an incredibly pale shadow of what the UN Human Rights Committee asked Ireland to do.

I accept the Bill only deals with an aspect of the issues but it is the Government's lack of attention to the other aspects that is causing concern. Yesterday, the Minister made a point about an advocacy group. She did not name the group but I assume she meant Justice for Magdalenes. She said the group was somehow operating under a misimpression and banging a drum needlessly, and that the Bill was giving them everything to which Mr. Justice Quirke said they were entitled in terms of medical provision. As Deputy McDonald said, it is quite clear that significant issues arise that show that is not the case. It is true the card that is envisaged in this context is better than a normal medical card and that access is provided to services, but it is the nature of that access that is hugely different in this scheme from it was in the HAA card. People with the HAA card could get access to any service they liked anywhere, without restriction while all of the provisions in this context seem to have barriers. It is not just the Justice for Magdalenes who have made the point. Other who have said it include the National Women’s Council, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and Amnesty International. They are all on record in that regard. All such groups have legal experts working with them and they are capable of reading legislation. They are not known for making exaggerated claims and, therefore, one would have to take their concerns with grave seriousness in this regard. I certainly do.

The point that has been made is that these women effectively signed a waiver that they would not take action against the State in return for the full package, and that will be absolutely undermined now because the full package would not appear to have been delivered in the scheme. I echo the point made about full pension rights being given to these women. They should be treated as if they had full pension contributions. Some of the women were basically engaged in slave labour, earning substantial amounts of money for the laundries and the State was a huge beneficiary as well. They are entitled to the fruits of that labour, yet the State has not agreed to backdate those payments as they should. The points made about the nursing homes support scheme and the need for liaison officers in particular are valid and well made. It is not just that it is the right thing to do, but it is also the legal requirement in order for us to be compliant with our human rights obligations.

Mark Kelly from the ICCL made the point that Article 14 of the United Nations convention against torture requires people to be able to obtain redress and benefit from an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation. That has not been provided and it must be provided. In fairness, Colm O’Gorman spelled it out even better when he said that the women and girls in these institutions experienced a range of human rights abuses, including inhuman and degrading treatment, arbitrary deprivation of liberty and forced labour. He called on the Government to live up to its obligations under the Quirke scheme. That is not a lot to ask for regarding what was done to these women. Frankly, I am shocked that we even have to be here. I am particularly shocked that it appears a game is being played where the Minister is saying one thing and giving the illusion that what Mr. Justice Quirke outlined is being delivered, but the reality seems to be quite different. That is far from what we should be doing.

In the final minute remaining to me, I wish to read an e-mail I received from a woman who was not in a Magdalen laundry but in a mother and baby home. She summed up very well what the country had done to people like her. It is a reminder to the Minister and the Government as to why the scheme is on the table in the first place. The subject of her e-mail was “Unmarried, unwanted, unheard”. She spoke about being a survivor of the culture, the shame, the fear and the grief. She said it was an insidious control in this State that was designed to bring the women to heel. She said that because they were female, men were allowed to rape and run, and worse, if they stood by you, you could pay for the rest of your life in servitude. She went on to talk about her own experiences and how she got on with her own life. There are people at the back of this. It is not good enough that we would give them any added misery by dragging our heels on their entitlements, not even the bare minimum we are looking for. I echo the points made and appeal to the Minister to revise the scheme as it stands.

See this speech in context