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

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 4, to delete lines 16 and 17.

During the debate on the Bill last week we had an argument over the amendments that had been ruled out of order. The Acting Chairman at the time said that when we reached those amendments, we could raise the issue, but now we discover that we cannot do so. I will not waste any more time on this issue, but I wish to register the point that it is very difficult to table amendments to row back on something the Government does that would not involve a cost to the State. How are we meant to do this?

Amendment No.12 is based on the idea that the Magdalen women are entitled, according to the United Nations, to a full independent inquiry and full redress. This scheme, however, obligates them to sign a waiver and commit to not taking further action against the State in the future in order to avail of the limited compensation available. That is wrong. A lot of the women involved, either through desperation or because they have limited time left owing to illnesses such as cancer, felt compelled to sign away their rights.

They should not have had to sign away their rights. The State owes them whatever they can claim in court. The obligation on them to sign waivers that they would not take legal action was not right.

A question about waivers was raised by advocacy groups for the women concerned in the light of what many saw as the scheme being less than that recommended by Mr. Justice Quirke. It has been argued that the waivers could be challenged by the women concerned or others on their behalf because the scheme falls short of what was recommended and of their understanding that they were getting everything recommended by Mr. Justice Quirke. I do not know if the Minister has a comment to make on it, but it is an issue. I have heard it being raised by the Justice for Magdalenes group and other women's groups. It is unjust from this point of view. Is the Minister satisfied that the women concerned are getting what they initially signed up to receive when they signed the waivers? We have had a debate about the limitations of the HAA card and what is not provided under the scheme. We have also debated the issue of pension entitlements. I am not sure if that issue has been ruled out.

Will the Minister clarify the following point? Mr. Justice Quirke recommended that the women be paid their full pension entitlements as if they had been paying into a pensions scheme, rather than incarcerated in the laundries. There were to receive backdated payments, which is not recommended under the current scheme. It seems that the waiver scheme might be in jeopardy.

See this speech in context