Catherine Noone (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to the House. As a woman I wholeheartedly welcome this Bill which will take steps towards reparation for the thousands of women who were virtually imprisoned in the Magdalen laundries from the late 1800's to late in the last century.

According to the McAleese report, 10,012 women in Ireland were confined to these laundries over eight decades, not including those in two institutions run by the Sisters of Mercy. Most women, actually some 61%, spent less than a year in the laundries and the median age of their entry was 20 years old. The Bill seeks to make available, without charge, certain health services and supports to women who were admitted to and worked in certain institutions. It also provides that their income from the ex gratiapayment element of the redress scheme would be exempt from means testing for the nursing homes support scheme, should they need to avail of these services.

The Bill may affect up to an estimated 1,000 women who were admitted to and worked in these laundries and who are still alive. In 2013 the Government established a commission under Mr. Justice Quirke and he recommended a redress scheme be put in place with financial, lump sum and pension-type payments and a benefit-in-kind element. Interestingly, these institutions were not confined to Ireland nor were they exclusively Catholic-established or operated. Their history in Europe may date back to medieval times but the first of what could be determined to be a Magdalen home was established in England in 1758. The first in Ireland was a Protestant asylum established in 1765 and in the late 1800s there were at least 41 Magdalen institutions in Ireland. This Government is to be applauded for taking up the cause of the Magdalen survivors. Previous Governments contested the State's role in the operation of the laundries. For example, in 1998 the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats coalition Government posited that a public inquiry was not warranted since the Magdalen institutions were private entities. I am sure even Senator Power would recognise that, in this context, a reasonable amount has been done to give some support to survivors.

In 2010 the then justice Minister, Mr. Dermot Ahern, stated that there were no plans for a redress scheme. Fast forward to June 2013 and this Government committed to implementing all the recommendations of the Quirke report, including lump sum payments and healthcare provisions. The Minister said that there had been some incorrect reporting on this but the Bill appears to fall short of the Quirke report and is somewhat limited. According to the report, survivors should also be entitled to private GP care as well as private ophthalmic and aural services and I would welcome the Minister's clarification on these points.

The Justice for Magdalenes research group wrote to Senators asking us to do our best to ensure the Magdalen survivors got what was promised to them. They point out that the women should be entitled to any prescribed medication drugs or appliances whatsoever but this appears to be limited in the Bill. They also state they should be entitled to private GP care and pointed out that, under the health amendment act scheme, hepatitis C women can visit any private practitioner. When they are referred for hospital treatment they should be entitled to an appointment within two weeks but this does not appear to be provided for.

The research group also called for complementary therapies to be made available to relatives of Magdalen survivors, as in the case of family members of HAA card holders. The JFMR was extremely concerned for the welfare of Magdalen survivors who lack capacity. Senator Power called for every woman who remains institutionalised in the care of the religious orders, especially women lacking capacity, to have a personal advocate assigned to her. I note the Minister's comments about section 21 to the effect that a care representative is to be appointed to such women but I wonder if this amounts to the same thing as a personal advocate being assigned to a particular patient. I agree with Senator Power on this point.

In fairness to the Government, it has made huge efforts to help the survivors but they were promised extra benefits to what are available on the medical card and they are entitled to them. I do not think we can ever be too decent or kind to these survivors. As Senator Power said they are limited in number and we may be able to go a little further than the distance travelled by the Bill.

I thank the Minister for coming to this House and look forward to his response.