John Gilroy (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Bill. The points made by my colleague, Senator Ó Domhnaill, are particularly worthy of support and the delivery of them here, without any hyperbole, in a calm manner, is exactly how we should conduct our business in this House. It is a great opportunity for the Seanad to give expression to the wishes of the Magdalen women and the Labour Party and Government are very keen to do it. There is a distance between what the Bill says and what people believe the Bill says, and this is where the main concerns arise. Several speakers have pointed out, with varying degrees of heat, the disparity between the Health (Amendment) Act 1996 and what is in the Bill. In fact, the wording of both is exactly the same, word for word, apart from section 2(1)(f) in the Health (Amendment) Act, which specifically references hepatitis C sufferers. I cannot see where there can be any ambiguity.

While operational difficulties surround the administration of all medical cards and, because of the nature of the system, individuals will experience difficulties at the interface between the services, we are dealing only with legislation, and we must confine ourselves to it. It cannot be disputed that the wording of section 2 of the Bill is the same as that in section 2 of Health (Amendment) Act 1996. It is written there. Any legislator who disputes it is wilfully misunderstanding it because the legislation is clear.

There are other areas in which we could extend a little more generosity and we will seek to do so and will talk to the Minister. We have invited some representatives of the Magdalen groups here later this week. We will invite all my colleagues here in the Seanad to get clarity before Committee Stage, which will be taken next week. The difference in many areas between what is in the Bill and what is understood to be in the Bill is a matter of language and interpretation as opposed to the actual content of the Bill. I will have a great deal more to say about this at a later time. In the past several months I have done much work on it and talked to many people. I have some other concerns that are probably best expressed on Committee Stage. I appeal to our colleagues to confine the debate to the legislation before us. This topic is very emotive. The State has perpetrated a grave injustice on these women from the foundation of the State, and it dates back to before it. Although it is probably right that emotion become entwined with the legislation, as legislators we must coldly look at what is before us. What I see is a Bill which is not a great distance from what the survivors of the Magdalen laundries seek.