Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The issue of women who were committed to Magdalene laundries is one of the last unresolved issues of the hidden Ireland of institutions, religious orders and the State so eloquently set out in the Ryan report and a whole series of articles, books, films, memoirs and television programmes.

Just before Christmas last year, the Justice for Magdalene group met senior officials in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. At that meeting, Mr. James Martin, an assistant secretary at the Department, stated that after the passage of the Criminal Justice Act 1960, the State routinely placed women on remand in the Magdalene institutions and paid a capitation grant for each woman so referred. I welcome the admission by the Department that women were routinely referred to various Magdalene asylums via the Irish court system in an arrangement entered into by members of the Judiciary and the four religious congregations operating Magdalene laundries in the State. Women were also placed in Magdalene laundries "on probation" by the Irish court system, in some cases for periods of up to three years.

There is cross-party agreement among many of Members of the Dáil in support of demand by the Justice for Magdalene group that records relating to all such women and to these institutions should be released. In addition, it now seems appropriate that the Minister for Education and Science should withdraw the assertion he made on 4 September 2009 that "the State did not refer individuals to Magdalene laundries; nor was it complicit in referring individuals to them".

The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has come clean and the Department of Education and Science should do the same. The Minister for Education and Science must come before the House and withdraw these references, as well as his previous references to women in Magdalene laundries being some form of employee in routine employment within the laundries. There is a need to seek to address the wrong that was done to these women. They need a forum in which to tell their story, recover their history and be acknowledged by the State. Many of the survivors, who are not numerous, now are elderly, poor and living in greatly reduced circumstances in Ireland, the United Kingdom and the United States.

It is welcome that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has entered into a serious dialogue with the representatives of these women. Last July, on foot of the publication of the Ryan report, the Labour Party introduced to the Dáil a Bill prepared by my colleague, Deputy Quinn, which sought to address some of the proposals in the all-party resolution which followed on from the Ryan report. This included a proposal to extend for the purposes of redress, the age of majority to the then age of majority of 21. The Labour Party believes this would deal with a significant number of cases.

For people under 40, there is almost no memory or familiarity with the laundries or the other institutions in which women were incarcerated, in many cases because they were having a child on their own or because they otherwise had come to the attention of the courts. Incarceration in such institutions was seen by the court system and a doctrinaire Catholic State as a substitute for female imprisonment. As I noted previously regarding the school I attended, a laundry was attached to the Sisters of Charity convent, Stanhope Street, that I believe continued until the end of the 1960s. The same also is true in other parts of the country.

I believe the public in Ireland and a wide body of cross-party opinion in this House, strongly supports justice and restitution for the women who were incarcerated and who worked like slaves in these laundries. It is up to the Minister for Education and Science to do this because in the Ryan report and many of the other reports, the Department of Education and Science had a pivotal role in committing people to institutions. Much has been learned from the Ryan and Murphy reports and a series of small steps remain to be taken in respect of the legacy of the Magdalen laundries. I believe the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has begun on the right road and the challenge is for the Minister for Education and Science to come before this House and do the same by remedying this historic wrong.

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

At the outset, I apologise that the Minister is not present. I agree with the Deputy that this is one of the most bleak periods and episodes in what, it must be said, was a bleak period in Irish life. Second, on reading the materials for the response to the Deputy, I note the bulk of them come from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I make this point in advance as a caveat because it may be that the Deputy will seek to retable this issue for discussion with a specific focus on her concerns regarding the Department of Education and Science. Therefore, the Deputy should forgive me if the reply does not quite touch on the areas on which she sought a response. However, it is a response to the question that was sent to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I also note, by way of summary, that the materials pertaining to the sentencing of persons, the Probation Act and remand touch on some of the areas to which the Deputy referred.

On the issue of sentencing persons, there is no statutory power for a court to sentence a person to be detained in a Magdalen laundry or any other such institution as an alternative to imprisonment. However, it is known from the commission of inquiry into the reformatory and industrial school system in 1934 to 1936, known as the Cussen report, that judges were reluctant to send certain young women convicted of criminal offences to female prisons. Instead they would send the offender to a home conducted by a religious order, provided that the young woman and the religious order agreed. The Department does not have details of these cases and the records in question are court records.

On the issue of the application of the Probation Act, the Probation of Offenders Act provides that where a person is found to have committed a criminal act - I accept that the majority of the young women to whom the Deputy referred committed no such act - but the court is of the opinion that having regard to the age, health or mental condition of the person or because of extenuating circumstances it is inexpedient to inflict any punishment, the court can discharge the offender conditionally on the person entering into a recognisance to appear before it within a specified period not exceeding three years. In the case of District Court cases, no conviction was recorded unless the person did not comply with the conditions.

The research to date has established that in 1924 and subsequent years one of the conditions of probation that was imposed in a number of summary cases in Dublin was a requirement that the person reside in Our Lady's Home convent in Henrietta Street. This was not a Magdalen laundry per se although it did operate a laundry. The order in question received some payment from the then Department of Justice in the form of an annual grant to the Roman Catholic Prisoners (Female) Aid Society and subsequently directly to the home. A report exists on the conditions there and there also are references to probationers being sent to the Good Shepherd Convent, High Park, Drumcondra, the Good Shepherd Convent, Gloucester Street, the Sisters of Charity, Donnybrook and the Sisters of Mercy, Dún Laoghaire. In 1942 and 1943, 45 women were assigned by the courts to such homes under the Probation Act. It appears that these orders and arrangements were made by the courts without reference to any Department of State. The requirements of a probation order, including its duration, would be made known by the court to the offender. The records of such orders are court records.

As the Deputy is aware, the courts have the power to remand a person charged with criminal offences in custody pending trial and sentencing. Periods of remand normally are quite short. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is responsible for ensuring that there are places of detention which can be used for remand purposes. In October 1960, the then Minister for Justice approved St. Mary Magdalen's Asylum, Sean McDermott Street and Our Lady's Home in Henrietta Street, Dublin for use as a remand institutions for girls between the ages of 16 and 21 years pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act 1960. Payments were made by the Department in respect of such cases.

Prior to 1960, the only option for the courts was to remand such persons to Mountjoy female prison. Incomplete records are held by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and in the archives relating to payments made in respect of persons remanded to St. Mary Magdalen Asylum, Sean McDermott Street, Dublin. The Minister is happy to allow access to them in the normal way. However, inquiries made to date indicate that many older files were destroyed by flooding and that it is the practice to destroy support documentation relating to payments after seven years. It is understood that part of the arrangements with the two institutions was that those remanded were to have same rights and privileges as provided for remand prisoners in Part III of the Rules for the Government of Prisons 1947.

In general, in the time available and on behalf of the Minister, it is not inappropriate to describe the situation as grim. I should also add that all the indications are that the majority of persons in such religious institutions did not come through the criminal justice system at all but entered due to poverty, family or other circumstances. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has no records relating to such people.

The Deputy asked specifically about the position of the Department of Education and Science. The Minister for Education and Science has indicated that children who were sent to Magdalen laundries from institutions scheduled to the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002 can be considered for financial redress if, as children, they were victims of abuse while resident in the laundries. However he does not intend to otherwise extend the redress scheme to such institutions. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform continues to liaise with the Department of Education and Science, given its co-ordinating role in the area of institutional child abuse and related matters.

On a personal level, I wish to add to this response. It is imperative that a humane approach be adopted to what was, as I noted the outset and as I am sure the Deputy will agree, probably the bleakest period in Irish history, when any sense of our humanity appears to have been put aside. I apologise if issues in respect of the Department of Education and Science were not dealt with in this reply. I hope that if, at a future date-----

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It would be helpful were I allowed another Adjournment from the Department of Education and Science and the Minister of State might speak to his colleagues in that regard.

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I certainly will put in a word for the Deputy and I acknowledge her point.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I appreciate that and thank the Minister of State.