Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will begin by acknowledging the progress to date to address the longstanding issues and concerns relating to those ladies who spent time in the Magdalen laundries. It is very heart-warming to meet those who have had settlements made and to see the difference this has made in their lives. Some of them live in Ireland while others are living abroad. They have waited a very long time but it has made a considerable difference for them.

There is no doubt that regardless of the time a lady spent in the laundry, whether a few months, one or two years or much longer, or, for some of them, their whole lives, every one of them was affected by what happened in those laundries. We are all agreed that what is needed is a fair, transparent and efficient restorative justice process. I wish to recognise the work of Justice for Magdalenes, with whom I have been very involved. Those women have been relentless in trying to bring that about. This should be the common denominator between all of us, that the process is fair, transparent, efficient and that it is restorative justice. My own life experience would convince me also that a collaborative effort will bring about the best results.

I was struck by the group e-mails which are titled, "Don't break your promises to the Magdalen women". This is the crux and we must ensure that promises are not broken. I refer to the Taoiseach's apology which was so well received by the ladies. It was probably one of those moments in the House that anyone who was present will always remember. The Magdalen women acknowledge that it was heartfelt. What struck them was the way in which the Taoiseach made the point that they were completely blameless. He apologised unreservedly for the hurt that had been done to them. He said they deserved more than the formal apology. He said that he wanted to put in place a process to determine how best to help and support the women in their remaining years. This was the expectation and this is what the Bill must fulfil.

Part of the concern about promises being broken comes from the shortcomings of the McAleese report and the disappointment felt by the women that it did not give a true representation of their lives, their pain and their suffering. Part of the reason was the narrow remit of the McAleese report which meant that it could not find whether there had been a violation of human rights. Almost 800 pages of testimony from the ladies had been submitted by the Justice for Magdalenes group but they were not mentioned in the report. Yet there were stories of young girls and women in prison - because that is what the homes were - working very long hours for no wages. In many cases they did not know why they were in the homes. Some of the saddest stories concern girls who were waiting to be collected because their families had given them the impression that they would only be in there for a short while and that the family would return to collect them. Some of them managed to escape but they were returned.

The length of stay is a problem in some cases. According to the McAleese report, a total of 61% of known entries spent less than one year in an institution but this is disputed by other research and by the electoral registers which show some women spent a minimum of eight and nine years. The UN Committee Against Torture criticised the report as being incomplete and not up to the standard of a thorough investigation. Other issues not addressed were the deaths in the laundries and the issue of the unmarked graves.

It is good that applicants do not have to prove that they suffered abuse or danger; all they need to establish is that they were admitted to one of these institutions. The payments vary, depending on the length of stay and there has been problems in this regard. Because of the shortcomings of the McAleese report and because of all the connections between the Magdalen laundries, mother and baby homes, industrial schools and county homes, there were hopes that the commission would be a more comprehensive and inclusive process. I suppose I am living in hope that the commission will go where the story leads it.

On the question of length of stay, I refer to the differences between what the ladies say and the lack of adequate records. The interdepartmental committee acknowledged that records were incomplete or non-existent for some women. The implementation team must make every effort to give time and space to those women who have a difficulty with regard to the length of stay.

The burden of finding proof is falling on them, which is much too stressful for some of them and is causing a lot of anxiety. For some it has become too much to the point that they have accepted whatever proof is on record, which is for less time than they spent in the institution. Some, because of their age or illness, are not able to pursue the matter through the Ombudsman but others are going in that direction. The Department should give detailed written reasons, at the initial offer stage and at the appeal, setting out why the applicant's evidence was or was not preferred over other available evidence. I know the team is working very hard, and I must ask whether it has enough resources to do the work. We know that 86% of applicants have had decisions made. When there is an insufficient written record and the Department or the team meet the women, they should treat as a matter of urgency those women of advancing years and those for whom it is urgent that the matters be addressed as quickly as possible.

The three pivotal areas of the Bill are health care, capacity and pension entitlement. We know the first recommendation for Mr. Justice Quirke was for a Health (Amendment) Act, HAA, card to cover the full range of services. Yesterday on Leaders' Questions, the Taoiseach confirmed the HAA card and the Minister has also said it. However, there are grey areas and there is ambiguity. It must be cleared up that the full range of services will be available to the women. The Minister must come to the House and specify this in more detail. There are debates about angel healing and homoeopathy, but we know reflexology, aromatherapy, acupuncture and massage all contribute to a person's sense of well-being. It does not make sense for them not to be included. It must be clarified that the full range is available. We know some of the women signed legal waivers not to sue the State on the understanding they would have the full range of services.

Regarding capacity, do I understand we must wait for the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill? What will happen in the meantime, particularly for those with an average age of 70? We know there are ladies in institutional settings and nursing homes, some with mental health issues, and Mr. Justice Quirke found a significant minority would face difficulties. Something must be done in the meantime if we must wait for the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill. Perhaps the work of the National Advocacy Service for People with Disabilities could be brought on board.

There are also issues relating to the State contributory pension, which have been mentioned. The question is simply whether the Bill will implement fully Mr. Justice Quirke's recommendations on this.

I have discussed with the Minister the issues relating to An Grianán. We know girls in An Grianán worked in the laundry but this institution is not included. Some of those who were in An Grianán did not get redress through the other board, and there were valid reasons in some cases. This is where the issue of a finite time presents problems. Their experience in the laundries has been so horrific for some people that they may not have been able to deal with it through the redress board at the time. Therefore there must be some leeway on this matter.

I acknowledge the Minister's commitment on this. More has been started and progressed in recent years than ever before in the history of the State. We have many dark moments in our history, from the Famine to all of these issues on institutional care to what happened in the North during the Troubles. We must be responsible, adult and mature enough to take all of these on board and face the past and those dark moments. We must face them in a way in which we acknowledge accountability and responsibility. We are told the truth will set us free.

Dreadful things happened to women. Dreadful things happened in the institutions, and the religious congregations have much to answer for, but so do families and communities. It is disturbing to read of people and meet the women who were brought to institutions by their families. The story of one particular woman will always stay with me. Her mother died, her father remarried and her stepmother did not want her, her sister or her brother, so they were brought to a laundry and left there. She is a feisty lady who has made great strides in her life and has benefited from what has come out. These are the real stories . Sometimes we get caught up in the figures and we do not see the real people behind them. If the Bill is to be progressive, we must see the people behind the statistics.

See this speech in context