Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

We will be supporting this legislation although we have some reservations about elements of it. The State has a desperate legacy in respect of the women in the Magdalen laundries. It is not an item that can be considered in isolation. It is part of a wider network and system of institutionalisation that extended to mother and baby homes, county homes and other institutions. It really is a very dark stain on our history. It is welcome that this legislation has been brought forward but to some extent it was prompted by serious criticism from the Ombudsman and court cases.

We are examining the legislation following recent stories in the news such as the recent case taken by Louise O’Keeffe and, similarly, those taken by women who were resident in the Magdalen laundries. The State has in the past adopted a too restrictive approach. We have seen that on numerous occasions and Louise O'Keeffe is just another example of the State and the Department persistently attempting to minimise exposure. Unfortunately, that has led to people being excluded, which is wrong and which has been very hurtful.

The Ombudsman's report on the administration of the Magdalen redress scheme was published approximately 18 months ago. The investigation found serious inconsistencies in the Department's application of the redress scheme eligibility criteria. Women recorded as admitted to a different institution closely associated with another named laundry were refused admission to the scheme. Even after the investigation was complete and the recommendations prepared, it was delayed further. In evidence to the Joint Committee on Justice and Equality earlier this year, Mr. Peter Tyndall told members that in his ten years as Ombudsman, he had never reached a point where a Department had, prior to a publication of a report, categorically refused to engage in the process of accepting and implementing the recommendations made. The report stated:

My investigation found a serious inconsistency in the application of the eligibility criteria in that women were admitted to the Scheme who were recorded as admitted to one particular institution closely associated to a named laundry while women who were recorded as admitted to different institution closely associated with another named laundry, were refused admission to the Scheme. This was despite the almost identical profile, characteristics and relationship with the associated laundry both institutions shared.

Following that, on 16 April 2018, the Minister announced he was bringing proposals to expand the scheme to Cabinet the next day. Nevertheless, it took a year for the matter to be progressed.

The legislation applies the Magdalen redress scheme to women who worked in the institutions covered by the scheme while residing in certain adjoining institutions. It will make the necessary technical amendments to the 2015 Act, expanding to certain women who worked in institutions covered by the scheme while residing in certain adjoining institutions. It should not have taken the Ombudsman's intervention no cases being brought to the High Court. This should have been part of it from the get-go.

I note the outstanding commitment to promised healthcare. The recommendations of the Quirke report in 2013 were accepted in full by the Government but some of them have yet to be fulfilled. Women who were part of the scheme have not yet been afforded a standard of healthcare in line with that provided for through the Health Amendment Act, HAA, card. The card, which gives entitlement to a range of services for the lifetime of the cardholder, is one of the most important cards awarded by the HSE and Mr. Justice Quirke recommended that anyone who qualified for the scheme should be awarded the card. Services such as complementary therapies fall within the remit of the card and are vital to those who seek to avail of the scheme but it does not currently afford them. The benefits of such therapies are well documented, particularly among those who have experienced traumatic events or suffer from anxiety, depression or more complex conditions.

In 2015, several dentists confirmed publicly that instead of receiving HAA standard services, as recommended by Mr. Justice Quirke and agreed by the Government in 2013, Magdalen survivors had been given a card that entitled them only to a limited and incomplete treatment, equivalent to that available to most medical card holders. The dentists called on the council of the Irish Dental Association to disassociate itself publicly from the Government to speak up publicly on behalf of its members who do not accept the injustice we are expected to support. The Government needs to address this. HAA standard services that were promised need to be realised and I hope the Minister will address that.

In the context of the current scheme, there is also the issue of access to healthcare for women abroad. I understand that women in England receive reimbursement of their medical expenses but that is a significant problem because very often such women need the State to pay for their healthcare upfront, given that it is not always possible for them to pay the money out of their own pocket and have it reimbursed.

I hope the Minister will consider and address the policy issues for which the women in question need support. In general, we support the legislation. It is overdue but it should not have taken a court case or the Ombudsman's intervention.

See this speech in context