Jillian van Turnhout (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State. I am very encouraged by what all of my colleagues have said so far and hope the Committee Stage debate will prove fruitful.

I stand in solidarity with Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell who so eloquently expressed her views on this matter. This is an issue about which I feel strongly and become quite emotional. Of course, it is an emotional subject and during the years I have met so many survivors of the Magdalen laundries who have shown such courage and dignity. The time has come for us to display similar courage and dignity.

When the Taoiseach made his formal apology in February 2013, there was much debate about whether it was sufficiently good, sincere, etc. At the time I stated I had been profoundly moved by what he had said. However, the apology he gave was not to me; it was made on my behalf and that of others to the survivors and their families. The litmus test of the Taoiseach's apology was the tenor of the response to it. I was heartened, therefore, by reports which indicated that survivor advocacy groups had very much welcomed the apology. With the passage of time, I have reached the view that the real litmus test of the veracity of the Taoiseach's apology is the robustness of the redress scheme delivered for the Magdalen survivors in our name.

Several Senators have referred to the position on HAA cards and a number of other issues which remain outstanding and continue to cause hurt to many of the survivors. My experience and that of those who work directly with the women concerned is that the cards in question are desperately needed. Magdalen survivors who already have medical cards cannot use them, particularly those in nursing homes and other institutions. They are being informed that resources are not available and that waiting lists are too long. This means that they cannot access care or treatment.

The Minister of State referred to complementary therapies and indicated that he might perhaps look outside the legislation and consider the position on an administrative basis. That is extremely difficult to accept because this matter relates to rights, not charity. What we are discussing is that to which the women concerned are entitled. This issue brings to mind the image of Lady Justice holding her scales. For so much of the lives of the women concerned, the scales were balanced against them. We must take it on ourselves to rebalance the scales and ensure justice is done. I have heard some people speak against complementary medicine. Many of the Magdalen survivors I have had the honour to meet have informed me about their sense of loneliness and isolation and complementary therapies could provide the healing and therapy they require. They are so stressed and distressed that being touched by another person can be a hugely powerful experience. I do not think we should underestimate or diminish the power of complementary therapies.

Mr. Justice Quirke recommended the establishment of an office for survivors. I cannot speak strongly enough in favour of this suggestion, especially for those women who are still in the care of nuns and who need support and oversight. People need to be appointed to work with, protect and support these individuals in the years to come.

The Minister of State referred to nursing home regulations. The reality is that many of the women concerned do not live in nursing homes. What about those who avail of disability services? They are not covered by the regulations. These are some of the women about whom some of my colleagues and I are talking. We need to cater for them in the legislation.

On the issue of capacity, the Bill is a step forward, but we are too long waiting in this regard. There is a need to consider how we can ensure the women concerned can have a voice and access the money to which they are entitled. Is it the case that we are allowing the clock to tick and that we are waiting for them to die? When I was preparing for this debate, I came across a strong and powerful comment made by Mr. Colm O'Gorman at the launch of Amnesty International's In Plain Sight report when he said:

But the focus cannot be purely on the past, as if this history has no relevance for our society now. We must consider the degree to which this history reveals vital truths about the nature of our society today. The past only becomes history once we have addressed it, learnt from it and made the changes necessary to ensure that we do not repeat mistakes and wrongdoings.

I will be supporting the amendments Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell intends to table on Committee Stage. I still have questions about State involvement in and oversight of the Magdalen laundry system. Did the relevant Department knowingly make efforts to deny or minimise the level of State involvement? The UN Committee Against Torture made reference to this matter in 2011.

I have outstanding issues with regard to the unnamed graves and about granting dignity to those women who died behind the walls of these institutions. I do not think we can allow this opportunity to passd without commend the late Mary Raftery for her efforts to bring the issue of unexplained and unregistered deaths to the fore in her article entitled, "Restoring Dignity to Magdalens", which appeared in The Irish Timesin 2003. The article in question was extremely powerful and I advise the Minister of State to take the opportunity to reread it.

As a society, by our silence we were complicit in the past. We cannot be complicit again by remaining silent now. We must ensure the women concerned obtain their rights. This matter relates to their rights and I am not requesting that they be given anything extra. However, they should be treated like royalty in view of everything they have done. As a society, we cannot be complicit by remaining silent. The Bill cannot pass through the Oireachtas unless it delivers full redress to the Magdalen survivors.