I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Health, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, and call on her to address the House.
Magdalen Laundries Report: Statements
I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss with the Seanad the final report of the interdepartmental committee set up to establish the facts of State involvement with the Magdalen laundries, which was published on 5 February last. Much has been said since then and much has happened. For me personally, the report has been the culmination of a long journey going back more than ten years when I first had an involvement with the issues of women who were admitted to and worked in the laundries. I know what they went through and I am delighted the reality and harshness of living and working in the institutions and what it meant for the women is now there for all to see.
As I recounted in the Dáil only a few weeks ago, I regularly visited some of the women in the United Kingdom and tried to offer whatever advice and support I could. As an indication of how far we have come, it is worth recalling a particular meeting I had with some of the women in 2003 at the Lazy Daisy Café in Notting Hill. Visiting Notting Hill on a Saturday morning shortly after the film "Notting Hill" had been released was not a great hardship. A number of concerns were expressed at the meeting about the provision of services to Irish victims of abuse living in the UK. I wrote to the then Minister for Education and Science in November 2003 outlining the simple and reasonable requests of the individuals in question and indicating what could be done to improve their lot. These were straightforward matters such as: requests to extend a free telephone helpline to the United Kingdom; provide updates in the form of a newsletter; provide a fax machine and computer; and the introduction of a right to choose one's own counsellor or therapist. It had been proposed that nuns and other clergy would be involved in providing counselling and while the religious in question were all decent and good people, people will understand the reluctance on the part of the individuals involved to accept the offer. Other requests included telephone assistance, a speedier response to queries and a comprehensive media information campaign. It was almost impossible to advance or progress these simple requests.
Shortly after the Government took office in March 2011, I had discussions with the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, about what we could do on the issue of the Magdalen laundries. We agreed to establish an interdepartmental committee to look into the matter and a policy decision to this effect was made in May 2011. On the day before the relevant memorandum was circulated to Government, the United Nations Committee against Torture, UNCAT, published its observations on Ireland, which included, at paragraph 21, a recommendation that "the State party should institute prompt, independent and thorough investigations into all allegations of torture, and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment that were allegedly committed in the Magdalene Laundries". While the non-binding recommendation of UNCAT was taken into account by the Government, it was not the driving force behind the decision to launch the investigation. It must be underlined that even if UNCAT had not reported on the matter, the Government would have established the interdepartmental committee.
Since then, we have all come along way, especially the women involved, many of whom are now elderly and never thought they would see the day when the leader of the country would deliver an apology on behalf of the people of the State in the Dáil. In that context, the apology given by the Taoiseach on 19 February last on behalf of the State and its citizens was both historic and heart-warming. It was warm, generous and sincere and I know only too well how greatly it was appreciated by the most important people of all, the women who survived the Magdalen institutions. It underlined again the determination and steel of this Government to deal with this issue from the moment we took office, right the wrongs done to these women in our name and put in place a process that will address those wrongs and, I hope, bring the much longed for closure the women have so desperately wanted for many years.
I thank the former Senator, Dr. Martin McAleese, for agreeing in the first instance to independently chair the interdepartmental committee to examine the extent of State involvement with the Magdalen laundries. The Senators present worked alongside Dr. McAleese in the House and appreciate only too well his dedication and commitment to whatever task he sets himself. He was an inspired choice to chair the interdepartmental committee and we owe him a great debt of gratitude for the report he produced which, for the first time, laid bare the facts about the extent of State involvement with the Magdalen laundries, the lives of the women who resided in them and the traumatic effects their experiences subsequently had on them and their families. With regard to criticism that has been made of the report, while it may not present the entire story from the point of view of history and academia, the report gave the Government the impetus to act and for this alone, we owe its author a debt of gratitude.
I also thank the women who came forward to relate their experiences in the Magdalen laundries and the effect these experiences had on their lives. Their stories were told with great dignity and, most important, they have been believed.
I thank the representative groups who so actively and for many years campaigned diligently on their behalf. I know only too well the work involved. I long campaigned on their behalf and I appreciate fully the difficulties faced, which thankfully were eventually overcome. We should also thank and acknowledge the co-operation given to Dr. McAleese's committee by the religious congregations who ran these institutions. They co-operated fully with the committee, provided full access to their records and assisted the committee in every way possible. While the past few weeks have undoubtedly been difficult for them and there has been much criticism, and rightly so, of the harshness and bleakness of life in the laundries, it is only right and proper that we recognise their contribution to this process. Their co-operation was essential in enabling Dr. McAleese to produce his report and ensuring the Government was in a position to take the next steps.
The Government is now addressing the needs of those still with us arising from the hurt they experienced during their time in the laundries. We are not wasting time and we want to act as quickly as possible. Since this process began, the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, and I have met, and will continue to meet, with the representative groups and many of the women involved. This includes women represented by the Irish Women's Survivors Network based in the UK and women currently living in nursing homes or sheltered accommodation under the care of the religious congregations. It should not be forgotten that care is currently being delivered in a different space and way. It is important also, amid all the noise around expectations of an apology, that we do not forget Jim Smith, who single-handedly through his use of technology and research, drove this issue on. He has done us and the women who lived in the Magdalen laundries a great deal of service.
I am glad to say that the women are very pleased with what is being proposed and the progress made so far. There is an end in sight and their ordeal is near over. While we may not necessarily agree on everything - I am sure we will not - I can assure Senators that they are being listened to and their views are being taken into account. Like Government, the women now wish for a non-adversarial approach — no lawyers or expensive legal fees - and a fast practical and effective solution which meets their needs and goes some way to righting the wrongs of the past. As Senators will be aware, the Government is putting a comprehensive scheme of supports in place to underpin a process of healing and reconciliation which we want to encourage and promote.
This scheme, the detail of which is being examined by retired High Court judge and current president of the Law Reform Commission, Mr. Justice Quirke, will be established soon. Mr. Justice Quirke has been asked to examine how, taking into account the McAleese report, the Government might best provide supports, including health services such as medical cards, psychological and counselling services and other welfare needs, for the women who need such supports as a result of their experiences. He has also been asked to advise on the establishment of a scheme under the fund, including identifying the criteria and factors to be taken into account, such as work undertaken in the laundries for no remuneration. Mr. Justice Quirke will advise on the operation of the fund and, in particular, the nature and amount of payments to be made from the fund. A decision will be made on its detailed operation when he reports back in three months time. I am confident this will make a difference for the women involved and can assure Senators that the Government will not be found wanting in considering his report. I assure them also that the scheme will be for the benefit of eligible applicants and will not be spent on legal fees and expenses. We have learned from the mistakes of the past and we will not be repeating past failures with which we are all well familiar.
I want to be clear that women who have already received payments under the redress scheme are not being excluded in any way. There is one small area of possible overlap. I understand that under the redress scheme a woman who went straight from an industrial school to a Magdalen laundry may have received a redress payment for the period up to the age of 18 spent in the Magdalen laundry. Mr. Justice Quirke has been asked to keep this in mind. The Government does not envisage that such women will be excluded. The process of identifying the numbers involved and inviting expressions of interest has already begun. Since last week, 20 February, the Department of Justice and Equality has received over 750 contacts from people expressing preliminary interest in being considered to receive benefits or supports from the scheme when it enters into operation. The figure of 750 represents first contacts and does not include everybody eligible to apply. As well as giving some indication of the likely numbers involved, this process will also allow people time to gather the necessary basic documentation that will be required to verify their identity and their stay in one of the relevant institutions.
As already stated, I have had a lot of contact over many years with the women who now live in London and the various support networks that operate there, often with limited resources and little practical funding. I know only too well the admirable work undertaken by such organisations with little or no financial support. To that end, I am very pleased that the Government will be able to make some provision to assist the UK Step by Step centre for Irish survivors of industrial schools and the laundries. This will be made as soon as the legal technicalities have been clarified. The women have been asked to consider the nature and location of a suitable memorial. It is only fitting that we would provide a memorial which tells their story, one to which we can all subscribe.
The Minister, Deputy Shatter, and I will be meeting the four religious congregations shortly to invite them to make a contribution to the fund being established by Government. We will be discussing the need to put in place a process for survivors to obtain their records in order to avail of the scheme. This will, of course, be essential to the process of identifying eligible participants for inclusion in the scheme and ensuring their claims will be dealt with promptly and efficiently.
I would like to assure the House of the Government's determination to continue to meet the needs of these women. It has been a long journey for them and it has not been easy. It behoves all of us to ensure we have an effective process in place as quickly as possible, one which meets their needs and which provides the fullest range of supports possible. I am confident that we can do this and, with the support of everyone involved, we will not be found wanting
Spokespersons have eight minutes within which to make their contributions and all other Senators have five minutes.
I welcome the Minister of State to the House and commend her personal commitment to this issue over many years. She is the right person, given that commitment, to discuss this issue with us in the House.
The Taoiseach spoke for all of us last week when he apologised unreservedly to the women incarcerated in the Magdalen laundries for the hurt done to them and the stigma they suffered. I was very proud of the Taoiseach last Wednesday not only in terms of his words but the genuine, warm and sincere manner in which they were delivered. I know what he said meant a great deal to the 1,000 survivors of the Magdalen laundries. My only regret is that more than 9,000 women never got to hear those words. I regret they were not delivered earlier.
The McAleese report documents the collusion of the State in the Magdalen laundries, in terms of State authorities being directly responsible for the admission of one quarter of all women to the laundries.
In the broader sense, it shows how the State facilitated 100% of the admissions to the laundries by allowing them to operate in the first place, by having gardaí bring women back after they had run away and by State agencies, such as hospitals, contracting their services. I found it very upsetting to read personal accounts of what women were subjected to. There was hard labour for no pay and cruel forms of emotional and physical punishment. Women who had done nothing wrong were there just because they were poor, because they had a disability in some of the most cruel cases or because they were orphans. There is no doubt some of the most vulnerable women were subjected to horrible cruelty by the people who ran the institutions. There is no doubt they were also failed by a Government that was meant to protect them and by wider society, which was indifferent to their suffering. It was a society, as we now know when we look back at how women were treated for so long, that tolerated forced adoption. It means there are now so many adults put up for adoption as kids who know nothing about their history. It is an issue we will return to in this House at an early stage with the debate on the adoption information Bill. What went on is a scar on all of us.
I was proud when the Taoiseach apologised on behalf of all of us. His apology was significant and genuine. I hope it is the start of a process for the women. It cannot be the end and no amount of compensation will make up for what they went through. The least we can do is make the remaining years of their lives a little easier through helping with matters such as medical needs, counselling and housing. It is the least we owe them, not as a form of charity but as payment for the hours they worked and for the hard work they did. Financial compensation is the least we can do and I welcome the process started by the appointment of Mr. Justice Quirke.
I also welcome the additional information provided by the Minister of State today. I seek clarification on a number of issues. I am sure the Minister of State received a list of questions from the Justice for Magdalenes group. Will Mr. Justice Quirke be asked to implement the process he recommended? I am not sure the Minister of State has thought about this and whether he will be part of rolling it out. Will the process have statutory footing with independent statutory powers? Is it envisaged people will have access to an independent appeals process?
The Minister of State raised the issue of support provided by some of the UK services. The survivor groups have raised the need for a dedicated helpline in the Department. The Justice for Magdalenes group has been running a volunteer service but its members are overwhelmed and are not in a position to give women the support they need. Will specific measures be put in place to help women who are still institutionalised to ensure they have advocacy and people working on their behalf? Are steps being taken to ensure the sons and daughters of Magdalen survivors and other relatives, including victims who have been adopted, will have access to their records? As someone who was adopted as a child, a matter I have spoken about previously, I find it difficult to speak about adoption and some of these issues. But for the grace of God, I could have been born 20 years earlier, and I think about what we did to mothers like my mother, who got pregnant when they were unmarried. We must do everything we can to help the Magdalen women who suffered in those homes but there is a broader issue in modern Ireland with regard to other people who have suffered and how we deal with adoption and other vulnerable groups in our society.
An excellent article by Carl O'Brien in The Irish Times on Saturday raised the case of some of the vulnerable groups in modern Ireland. They are still in a terrible position and include those living in direct provision, as raised by Senators van Turnhout and Ó Clochartaigh in this House on several occasions. Children in entirely unsuitable accommodation share toilets with adults of the opposite sex. Another case is people with mental health problems and disabilities in institutionalised care that is not properly inspected. We still have people being sent to adult institutions when we accept it is not right. Minors end up in adult prisons rife with drugs and intimidation. Unfortunately, they come out worse at the end. Steps are in place to change that but if the Taoiseach's apology is to be meaningful and to mark a watershed for the country, we must examine the practices in place and ensure it cannot happen again. I hate the idea that another Minister of State would have to sit in that seat and apologise to people to whom society has turned a blind eye and has not served.
I welcome the statement that the Minister of State and the Minister for Justice and Equality will meet the religious orders. It is vital they accept moral and financial responsibility for what women were subjected to. I have been astonished by the silence over the past week. I hope that changes after the meeting and that the religious orders step up to the plate. I welcome this event and I commend the personal commitment of the Minister of State and hope that today the women here to hear us and the families of those who have passed away can finally see their mothers and grandmothers get justice.
I welcome the Minister of State and I thank her for her contribution, interest and commitment to these women and this sad chapter of our national history. I thank the Taoiseach for his contribution and his speech of apology in Dáil Éireann last week and I thank our former colleague, Martin McAleese, for his calm, balanced and thorough chairing of the committee, which did such an effective investigation. I pay tribute to the survivors who prevailed not just to tell their story but, by doing so, have left a mark on Irish history. Hopefully, it will improve the lot of future generations and future marginalised and disadvantaged people.
The Minister of State made an interesting off-script comment that, notwithstanding what has been reported, written and deemed to be an accurate history, much more will be investigated, written and added to the jigsaw of our past. That to which she refers will not make for pleasant reading; it will be painful but it needs to be so. Our history is a difficult patchwork and while we can glorify certain patriots and periods, we have pushed much under the carpet and into the recesses of our memories and our collective memory. It must be brought out and brought forward for no other reason than healing. If a country needs to heal its soul and heal itself, it must delve into the dark recesses of the past and fully acknowledge what was done. The State has played a role that is not glorious in the lives of many of the citizens. At times, the State, the churches and religious congregations came together.
Unfortunately, it is not a record of which either organisation can be in any way proud. Hopefully, this report and other such reports will help us to learn and move forward. In the very immediate future, we must ensure that Mr. Justice Quirke is provided with whatever resources he needs to bring immediate healing to very hurt people. It can never be total healing and while all of the psychological, financial and medical support which can be provided will be, and that will help, there is no 100% remedy for past difficulties, pain and sin. However, at least if these women - I will not call them unfortunate women because they are very strong and powerful - can recognise that we are learning and determining, as a nation, to progress forward in a more open and inclusive fashion, that can be part of the healing process as well.
I am very pleased that the Minister of State, Deputy Lynch, and the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, in their comments to date have stressed the fact that the package of measures which will be put in place will focus on the survivors and not on legal niceties, tribunals or expensive mechanisms. We will try to ensure the resources will go to where they are required, which will be very helpful. That would be part of the State's attempt to heal itself. Then we must move on to the institutions, which were generally of a religious nature. The religious organisations must ask what they can do as part of the healing not just for the women, but for themselves, at a time when the Church and all of its institutions are under significant stress anyway. I look forward to the Minister of State, Deputy Lynch, and the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, and perhaps the Taoiseach, meeting the religious organisations and I hope that stemming from that will be a very clear demonstration, through attitude and action, by the Church institutions of an acknowledgement of wrongs which they committed and a willingness to, in so far as possible, make amends. We have to be realistic and recognise that today's church leaders and authorities have neither the influence, resources or finances of their predecessors but they must be seen to make a very deliberate effort and to take, if one can excuse the pun, some pain as part of the healing of other people's pain. That would be good for society.
There are so many issues jumping from the pages of this report and much of it is a stain on the soul of the nation. Obviously, much attention will focus on the religious organisations and, as the Minister has said, rightly so but that is not the only part of the story. Irish society was very harsh. My mother, who is 90, speaks of children in her townland and, in particular, children of farm labourers who went to school hungry and of the responsibility she felt to help them, even though she was of very modest means. She speaks of the lives and employment conditions of these people, which were appalling. That was not the responsibility of the State or even the church but was how society ordered itself. The Ireland of the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s was not just an unequal place, but a cold place. Much of this profound difficulty stems from how we ordered society then and from our excessive deference to people of means. The people of means were not always parish priests but were often the big farmers and those of so-called superior social standing, who could do as they saw fit. In 100 years time, the history of modern Ireland will move very quickly beyond the 1916 Rising, the War of Independence and the Civil War and will have many interesting chapters on the very cold and sometimes cruel social fabric of our country. That certainly needs further amplification and much healing is required.
Regarding these magnificent ladies who have lived to tell their tale, we must first wish them well. We must also give them an absolute assurance that we recognise the significant wrong done unto them and an absolute guarantee that we will do everything humanely possible to heal their hurt. I look forward to the Minister of State, Deputy Lynch's ongoing work, along with her colleagues, the Minister for Justice and Equality, the Taoiseach and the Government and the entire Oireachtas, in this regard.
Two hours ago in this Chamber we had what would be considered a normal political debate, which we will not rehash now. It was the Punch and Judy of Irish politics, which does not serve much purpose at all. This debate and the debate in the Dáil last week and the contributions of many people, including the Minister of State, Deputy Lynch, Senator Power, who has spoken on this topic on many occasions, and her party leader, Deputy Martin, and others, represents good politics. It is good for the soul of the country and for its citizens and most definitely, for the survivors of the Magdalen laundries.
I also welcome the publication of the report. I begin by asking that the Department of Justice and Equality ensures that copies of the report are provided to those survivors who do not have Internet access, including some who provided testimony to the committee and who have yet to receive a copy. I wish to pay tribute to the Minister of State's own personal conviction and courage on these issues.
This report established, categorically, what survivors and their advocacy groups have told us for years, namely, that the State was directly involved and consequently, complicit, in the Magdalen laundry system. I very much welcome the State's inclusion of all surviving women in the apology, thereby avoiding any distinction being made between survivors who were sent into the laundry system by their families and those incarcerated there at the behest of the State. This is a very important non-distinction which embraces the fact that the laundry system itself was inherently abusive, rather than the abuse stemming from the women's and girl's mode of entry. In this regard, however, I must express my disappointment that the report found little evidence of physical abuse, which seems contrary to the evidence handed to the committee by the Justice for Magdalene's group, comprising 12 files of supporting evidence, including 795 pages of harrowing survivor's testimonies from girls who were assaulted by nuns, often with keys, belts and other implements, as well as from independent witnesses who attested to the truth of these stories. In the Ryan report, volume 3, chapter 18, and in various documentaries and survivor testimony, it has been widely accepted that these institutions were inherently abusive. If gruelling and relentless unpaid labour behind locked doors is not physical abuse, I do not know what is. The report, in my opinion, should have been dedicated to the survivors of the Magdalen laundry system and all those who did not survive its brutal regime.
Whatever side of the political divide one is on, as Senator Power very clearly articulated earlier, the capacity of Deputy Enda Kenny, as Opposition leader, for example, in response to the Ryan report, and as Taoiseach in response to the Cloyne report, to speak with compassion and sincerity on subjects of the greatest sensitivity is beyond reproach. This was further exemplified when he made his considered official statement and apology on behalf of the Irish State on the evening of 19 February for what is, undoubtedly, our national shame. There has been much discussion following the Taoiseach's formal apology about whether it was good enough, sincere enough or moving enough. I can only speak personally when I say that I was profoundly moved by the Taoiseach's words. However, the apology was not for me. It was given on my behalf, but it was for the survivors and their families. The litmus test is them and I am heartened by reports from survivor advocacy groups and the survivor's reactions to the news teams, directly after the Dáil address, that the Taoiseach's sincere and heartfelt words were deeply meaningful to the survivors, who feared that day would never come.
We need to learn from our past, and several times in the Seanad I have quoted the Amnesty International report, In Plain Sight, which responded to the Ferns, Ryan, Murphy and Cloynes reports. In the report, which is still very relevant, Colm O'Gorman, a former Senator and executive director of Amnesty International Ireland, stated:
[T]he 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 wrongdoing.
Since having been appointed a Senator I have found myself questioning how much we have learned as a society and a State, when the culture of secrecy, collusion, cover-up and lack of accountability which surrounded institutional and clerical sexual abuse can still be seen in contemporary contexts, such as with regard to the survivors of symphysiotomy and the treatment of asylum seekers, particularly children, in the State-run direct provision centres which we have debated in the House. This is the Ryan report of the future if we do not deal with it.
Having now established categorically there was State involvement and oversight in the Magdalen laundries system it is also important to establish whether in more recent times the State and its relevant Departments knowingly made efforts to deny this fact or minimise its involvement. I speak, for example, of our testimony before the United Nations Committee against Torture in 2011. There are also outstanding issues involving unnamed graves at the Bohermore cemetery in Galway and unexplained and unregistered deaths in High Park in Glasnevin. On this point, this opportunity should not be allowed to pass without commending the late Mary Raftery on her efforts to bring the issue of the unexplained and unregistered deaths to the fore in her 2003 article in The Irish Times entitled "Restoring dignity to Magdalenes". In it she raised allegations of the most serious order, including that the then Department of the Environment had issued additional exhumation licences for unidentified and unregistered human remains without a full investigation of the circumstances. That such an investigation did not take place at the time and still has not taken place beggars belief. Where was the accountability then and where is it now?
I have been very disappointed by the radio silence so far of the four congregations at the centre of the McAleese report. Where is the accountability and where is the media and public scrutiny of the wholly inadequate apologies they have issued? I have read their apologies very carefully. One congregation used the word "refuge" to describe the laundries eight times in seven sentences. We have established these institutions were anything but refuges. Other congregations acknowledge that the limitation of care during the time women spent with them was wrong and upsetting. I welcome the calls by the Tánaiste, Deputy Eamon Gilmore, and by the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, for the religious congregations to contribute to the compensation scheme. I would very much like to see the congregations offer contributions in acknowledgement of their direct role in the abuses suffered by women rather than coming forward on foot of pressure by the State.
The system of redress must be prompt, open, transparent, fair and non-adversarial. I welcome the appointment of Mr. Justice John Quirke to head up the three-month review to recommend criteria for providing support, payments and services to the women. Senator Power asked a number of questions about statutory footing and independent appeals and I will write to the Minister, Deputy Shatter, on these issues. I call on the Minister and the Minister of State, Deputy Lynch, to give full and frank consideration to the restorative justice and reparation scheme for Magdalen laundries survivors proposed by the Justice for Magdalenes survivor advocacy group.
It is good that the report has been published and it very clearly proves State involvement, but it does not mean the book is closed. It has opened a new chapter, and what belongs in this new chapter is up to us. We must support the women and the organisations supporting them. We can stand together on this and show we have learned from the mistakes of the past.
I warmly welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, to the House. As everyone else has stated, I pay tribute to her for her great work in campaigning for so long on behalf of the survivors of the Magdalen laundries. Historic speeches were made in the Dáil last week, and when the Tánaiste spoke he singled her out as having played an enormous role in ensuring that at last we would see a form of justice for the survivors of the institutions. As she stated, having been involved for many years and having met some of the survivors in London in 2003, she has a very good and deep understanding of the pain and suffering they have gone through for so many years.
I welcome the historic apology given by the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste on behalf of all of us last week on 19 February. The apology is historic because it is the first time any Government in the State has acknowledged the wrong done to the women and girls incarcerated in the Magdalen laundries during the 74 years between 1922 and 1996 when the last laundry closed. We know during the 74 years there was collusion of State and church, of the religious orders and the State apparatus, in the incarceration of women and children in these institutions. We saw the same collusion in the operation of industrial schools for so long. The Tánaiste spoke very powerfully about this culture of collusion and the patriarchal and theocratic state which operated such a brutal regime against women and children, who were perceived as somehow not fitting in, and who were in poverty. Others spoke about the class as well as gender issue which pertained in respect of the Magdalen institutions.
To speak a little about this context, as Senator van Turnhout stated, we know a good deal about the conditions in the Magdalen laundries, and we knew them before Dr. McAleese's report. Others, such as Maria Luddy, Eoin O'Sullivan, Mary Raftery and Ian O'Donnell, have written extensively about the Magdalen institutions. Earlier texts speak about the confinement of women and children in these institutions and the large numbers incarcerated, albeit not only in Magdalen institutions. O'Donnell, O'Sullivan and others have written that in 1950, 1% of the Irish population was incarcerated involuntarily in institutions such as Magdalen institutions, industrial schools and psychiatric institutions. As late as 1970, 20,000 people were incarcerated. Fewer than 1,000 of these were in prison and the others were incarcerated in large numbers in industrial schools, Magdalen institutions and other institutions. Looking at this type of historic record, we see single mothers, women who became pregnant out of wedlock, were incarcerated in other institutions, such as county homes and psychiatric institutions, as well as in Magdalen laundries.
We have had a very shameful history over a very long period in Ireland of incarcerating our poor, and women and children. This policy of confinement is being exposed through a series of events such as the Ryan report in 2009 and Mary Raftery's earlier documentary, "States of Fear". These are part of a series of events in which we have seen at last the dark shadows being exposed to the light. The Magdalen institutions are perhaps one of the last institutions from this period of the past to be exposed. All along, as the Minister of State has said, powerful advocates have acted consistently on behalf of the women, who themselves have been extremely brave in coming forward and it has been wonderful to see so many of them come forward to at last receive the apology they deserve. All of us want to pay tribute to the Justice for Magdalenes campaign and Professor James Smith, Sally Mulready of the British-based Irish Women Survivors Support Group and Stephen O'Riordan of the Magdalene Survivors Together, all of whom have very important parts to play in this process.
The Government made a commitment in 2011 to establish the first official reporting process under former Senator Martin McAleese. Others have paid tribute to the tremendous work he did for, it has to be said, extremely good value to the State. Criticisms have been made, some of them very valid, of his report, but a few points must be made. His was the first report to have the co-operation of the religious orders. This is hugely important as for the first time it gave us access to records which were not previously available and also exposed the absence of records. It is appalling to see that the two laundries run by the Sisters of Mercy had no admission records. People have criticised him for perhaps underestimating the numbers. Others previously suggested 30,000 women had been through the Magdalen institutions. Mr. McAleese could find records for only 11,000 admissions, but he stated he does not have any records for two institutions and there may well be more to come on this issue in particular.
As others have said, the conditions were down played and there was less reference to physical abuse and forced labour than one might have expected. Again, perhaps there is a strength in the understatement of the report. His remit was to examine State involvement and that is where the focus lies. There is plenty more to be written and plenty more to be said about the appalling and brutal conditions in which the women were kept for so long.
I shall comment on chapter 19 but I have read the report thoroughly. Like others and Senator Power, I found it desperately sad and heartbreaking to read the testimony of the women themselves, the fear, the loneliness and the isolation that they experienced. Dr. McAleese described it, in understated language, as a "cold, rigid and uncompromising regime". There will be more to be said about the conditions in the laundries. The report does stand as a very valuable starting point for us, in particular a starting point in establishing beyond a shadow of doubt the levels of State involvement in the laundries.
Looking to the future, others have welcomed the fact that Mr. Justice Quirke has been appointed and given three months to examine how best to establish a redress scheme and meet the needs of the women survivors. I am very glad to see Stanhope Street is being included in the scheme. I am very glad also, as the Minister of State confirmed on the record, that women who have already been through the redress board, because they were incarcerated in industrial schools, will not be excluded from the scheme. I acted as a lawyer for a small number of survivors before the redress scheme was set up in 2002 and there have been extensive criticisms, and very justified ones, of the scheme. The lesson that we must learn from the redress scheme is to avoid the adversarial system and women and their groups have already said that. I saw the levels of victimisation that were experienced by survivors before that board, which was set up in good faith by the State, but ultimately operated to pit survivors against each other under a crude weighting scale whereby there was a hierarchy of abuse. That is not the appropriate method to take this time and I am sure Mr. Justice Quirke's model will be very different.
Steven O'Riordan and the Magdalene survivors have suggested a much simpler idea, namely, to offer recompense based on the period spent in the laundry in recognition of the unpaid work done by the women and girls. That is a far better model to begin with. Undoubtedly there are other aspects such as the memorial for survivors, which the Minister of State spoke about, and the need to ensure access to records. The latter is a great issue for survivors of industrial schools and we need to make sure that there is a streamlined procedure introduced. There is also a need to ensure that there are contributions from the religious orders. Like others, I have been very concerned at how little they have had to say to date. We all know about the appalling indemnity deal done in 2002 with the former Minister, Dr. Micheal Woods, in respect of the religious orders and their contribution to the redress board scheme. We have all learned from that experience and I am sure that we will see a greatly improved scheme being offered now.
Finally, I pay tribute to the Minister of State for all of the work that she has done on the issue. This is a great, historic moment for all of us to be able to say in the Chamber how much we appreciate that at last justice is being done for the women survivors of the Magdalen institutions.
I call Senator Mullen and he has eight minutes.
I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I would like to be associated with the tributes paid to her for the great personal interest that she has taken in the issue over the years and for her genuine hard work in seeking to bring the stories of the Magdalen women to light. She also sought to ensure that whatever measure of justice is possible at this late stage in their lives, and in the life of the story, could be done. The Minister of State has received well-deserved tributes in that regard.
I also want, at this early stage, to pay tribute to those organisations which have worked to collate stories and worked on the issue over the years. I compliment them for carrying out advocacy work very well and on behalf of the Magdalen survivors. I want to pay particular tribute to Dr. Martin McAleese. On reading the report I can state that it is a great example of public service by him. It is not often that politicians get an opportunity to do the particular kind of service that he did.
As I read through his report a number of issues emerged and I was left in no doubt of his compassion and that of his team. He is now a former Senator but I wish that he was here to listen to our tributes. Unfortunately, he has left the House. He was very determined to tell the truth, the full truth and nothing but the truth while sticking to his remit. When he made other observations he was also very honest in stating what he found to be the case. I was struck by his honesty right from the beginning. In his introduction there was the juxtaposition that "None of us can begin to imagine the confusion and fear experienced by these young girls, in many cases little more than children, on entering the Laundries." In particular he talked about those who did not know why they were in the laundries but others knew. One of the really sad aspects of the story is that some people did not know why they were there and they did not know why they were picked up and brought back when they left, and such like. The Senator rightly talked about the harsh and physically demanding work environment.
It seems that when one compiles a report like this one must navigate between the very legitimate remembrances of those who have stories to tell of the great suffering that they had experienced in their lives but one must also seek to understand the issue in its fullness. I note that, in a few paragraphs, the former Senator talked with compassion about the hurt that the sisters of the religious congregations had also felt in the way that the story has sometimes been told. They understood themselves to have responded, often in practical ways, as best they could to fraught situations. In many situations they had to pick up for the inadequacies of State and society and I say that not to justify or excuse one single instance of cruelty that took place in any given time in any given situation. It is right and proper that the Dr. McAleese should tell it as he heard it and state the fact that the majority reported that they did not experience the cruelties, the physical punishment, the ill-treatment and abuse that was prevalent in the industrial schools system.
As politicians - and I shall exclude all present company from my statement - sometimes reach too easily for the big statement or great emotional statement that we know will bring us short-term congratulations. It takes courage in the current climate to tell the truth gently and completely. Dr. McAleese came as close as I have ever seen it done, without in any way minimising the wrongdoings and the cruelties, and sought to understand the position of those giving and providing the service for the State, so to speak, found themselves in. Great credit is due to him for that. His report is a fine example of public service. For the first time his report provides us with an accurate picture of the Magdalen homes issue. A deep apology by the Taoiseach last week was appropriate, necessary and long overdue.
As a society Ireland failed and we failed these women terribly. For some inexplicable reason we turned to the institutionalisation of people who did not fit within the parameters of a society that we were sometimes trying to create. What an amazing cruelty and lack of compassion that involved. Dr. McAleese, in his report, found that the Magdalen laundries had a profound and enduring negative effect on the lives of the women involved. He spoke of social stigma and the fact that many women found the experience lonely and frightening.
The report also enlightens us in regard to the earlier perceptions about the profitability of the laundries, the birth of babies in the Magdalen homes, the alleged widespread cutting of hair and widespread violence against the women in the homes. He dared to tell a different story where he heard testimony to that effect. The main findings for him were of isolation, emotional hurt and, in many instances, a lack of understanding and knowledge of why individual women were in care. Of course all of that is serious enough anyway.
The report also states that the findings, in many cases, may encourage a review of some perceptions about these institutions and the women who were admitted to and working in them. The committee hopes that the facts, established for the first time by its work and set out in the report, would contribute to a more complete, accurate and rounded understanding of these issues. In general terms, he said that there had been a considered debate of the issue but he found, in some instances, a move towards blaming the religious for all that occurred.
My time is limited. I apologise to the Minister of State that I must attend a meeting in Blanchardstown at 7.30 p.m. so I will not be able to do her the courtesy of listening to her respond to our presentations today but I will read it with great care. I hope that the Government, in its engagement with the religious orders will produce, and I shall paraphrase to some extent what Senator Bradford said, generosity on all sides and creativity. The redress story has been a sorry story for many reasons. I would hate to think that the heavy hand of threats around public relations, or how things would be perceived, would be part of the negotiations on any side. We also need to address the societal dimension. Can we examine the possibility of a contribution being made from lottery funding?
A big part of this story was the failure of individual citizens at every level of society and within families, sometimes because they were vulnerable families themselves and sometimes because people in those families were criminals. In conclusion, instead of singling out State and church in those easy big terms, can Members consider opening up the possibility that all of us in society might be invited to contribute in some way? For example, this could be through publicly-organised fund-raising events or a contribution from national lottery funds. Members could have a longer discussion about some of these ideas, some of which may be good and others may need a lot of work. However, it is worth opening discussion about that at this point and I thank the Acting Chairman for her indulgence.
I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I wanted to speak on this matter and note it is not the end but is only the beginning for the Magdalen girls. I compliment the Minister of State on the work she contributed on this matter over the years. I also compliment the Minister, Deputy Shatter, on taking it on board when the Government was barely in the door and ensuring it was a priority. The Minister also should be complimented on making it a priority in his Department. Members have listened to the heartfelt speeches from various Members of the Dáil but I am sure no one will mind if I single out Fine Gael's own leader, the Taoiseach, Deputy Kenny. While there had been criticism that he did not apologise straight away, it was proven that he wished to read the report's contents. His heartfelt and emotional response has demonstrated he is a man with a heart and who cares. This has demonstrated that in leading the country, his heart is also in the right place. I do not wish to be political about it but it is a Government that cares about people. The Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, is present and when she goes off-script, she sometimes is at her best. I also took note of Senator Bradford's comments about when the Minister of State was off-script. The survivors have also congratulated the Taoiseach. I also wish to pay tribute to Deputy Martin, who did say sorry. While it took a long time, it was better late than never and he recognised all the years of neglect when his Government should have done a great deal more when in office. I pay tribute to the survivors' groups that worked hard for many years, made available documentation and never gave up, as well as to the religious orders which co-operated and made available their documentation. While some records were not kept, all documentation they had was made available.
However, as the Minister of State and other speakers, including Senator Bacik in particular, have noted, there is a great deal more work to be done that will not make for pleasant reading. It was also appreciated that on the day, the Taoiseach announced he was both apologising and setting up a redress scheme. No apology, no matter how sincere, can ever erase from their minds what happened to them. It demonstrated to them that at last, they were listened to and that it was believed they were telling the truth. This meant a lot to them. Members cannot turn back the clock in respect of what was done but it has been acknowledged that wrongs were done. Moreover, the Government must ensure that in the future, it is better for everyone in every institution. Members also must remember those who died before they could hear this apology. In their absence, I am sure their people also wish to acknowledge them. I pay tribute to former Senator McAleese, who was an absolutely inspired choice by the Taoiseach. Perhaps I am wrong but I doubt whether any other person on earth would have got such co-operation. I recall his work on North-South co-operation when he was building bridges and this theme has been carried on with the building of bridges to bygone days. I pay tribute to the public service duty he has done.
The report demonstrated conservatism and unaccountability in how authority ruled with a heavy hand and how church authorities said one thing but did another. It demonstrated how unaccountable were church and State, where the State bowed to what the church said, where the rights of citizens were not even mentioned sometimes or were not even considered. Everybody had to kowtow to the official line, be it from church or State. It was a society in which many things were brushed under the carpet if they did not suit and woe betide anyone who challenged the conservative consensus. One might sometimes ask, when debating certain issues, whether much has changed. I am thinking about Fr. Flannery, who is challenging the conservative consensus and the poor man has been silenced for daring to challenge the conservative view. One has heard from the Magdalen ladies that appearances were everything and how girls were hidden in tunnels lest they dare speak when an inspector called. One must ask what the inspectors or the various visiting doctors were doing? People were being put in these institutions for just being bold, for being pregnant or whatever. I will not go over the litany of ways in which people were put into the institutions but none of them deserved to be there. Did people know exactly what was going on? People knew the laundries were there and I apologise on my own behalf while asking whether people knew precisely what was going on. While we did not know exactly, we all accepted it. I am glad it is now out of the open and one must pay tribute to the people who did that. I am positive that not everyone in the laundries was cruel and I have also heard good stories, which must be noted. However, the order was to obey authority and the rules of the day. There were lots of rules on morality where social control dominated. Where were the rules of justice or about the dignity of the person? Women who were denied contraception were locked up for being pregnant. One can tell them that one believes them. While I must conclude because my time is up, I have so much to say. The women must be congratulated on the work they have put in. I will conclude by stating that all of the churches must step up to the plate, in addition to the State, in respect of the redress scheme. I thank the Minister of State and note that rather than dwelling on the past, we will go forward.
First, I welcome the Minister of State the House. First and foremost, I commend her personally on the work she has done in this regard. On the day after the Taoiseach made his apology, I stated it was a full and honest apology that was absolutely required. As someone who has served in the Oireachtas since 2007, I make no bones about my belief that successive Governments, including the previous Government, failed these women. There is no other way of saying that and I am glad my party leader, Deputy Martin, stated this clearly in the other House. It was wrong and I remember it being brought up on some occasions in discussion with former colleagues when I was in the Dáil.
By Tom Kitt.
Yes, as well as by a former constituency colleague of mine, Michael Kennedy. While Michael will know I do not often pay him credit, they brought up this issue. I will outline what I consider to be important on foot of the publication of former Senator McAleese's report, which was an excellent piece of work. He was a good colleague to all Members here and the work he has done will stand the test of time as something that was done efficiently with the co-operation of all sides. Dr. McAleese has a way about him that gains trust from all people around. I acknowledged there were sensitivities, particularly in respect of some of the religious orders. Frankly, however, the idea the religious orders and the State are not liable financially is just nonsense. They will be obliged to step up to the plate and the redress scheme must be implemented in such a way that it does not lead to what Senator Bacik referred to earlier, namely, a replay of the former redress scheme. Everyone recognises that scheme was set up with nothing but good intentions but the legal profession made a sizeable amount of money from it. In addition, I am certain we should not repeat the manner in which victims were questioned about their experiences. Moreover, I believe the families, sons and daughters of the 1,000 or so ladies who are alive and the 9,000 or perhaps more who now are deceased certainly have a role in this process. Their lives were affected in many case because of the negative impact staying in these homes had on many of the ladies.
I acknowledge the Minister of State will remain close to this process and welcome the appointment of Mr. Justice Quirke with regard to the redress scheme. She may be unable to do so today but as this debate will adjourn and continue on another day, I ask the Minister of State to consider independent monitoring of the process. I used the example of the redress scheme of 2002 with regard to the industrial schools, which was established with the best of intentions. It did not really work as it should have done and Members should be sufficiently open to provide that if, God forbid, it appeared as though the scheme was not working as one would wish, a mechanism was in place for the Minister of State, the Minister, Deputy Shatter, or whoever to get involved. Obviously, one wants this process to be efficient and to not drag on forever. The Minister of State already has made this point of which I also am mindful. I refer to a specific request from the Justice for Magdalenes organisation, which I am sure it also asked of the Minister of State.
It is that we need to do work to ensure that when payments are made to ladies who are on existing State benefits they will not in any way negatively impact on their current or future benefits. For example, if cash payments are made to them that such payments will not be factored into calculations for means-tested benefits in the future should they seek medical cards, State pensions or other State benefits. It is important to do that. If they have not already done so, the Department of Finance and the Department of Justice and Equality will need to make inquiries with the Inland Revenue and the relevant department in the United Kingdom for the ladies in Britain who will receive payments from the State and the religious communities involved. We must ensure that payments made to the ladies concerned in Britain will not impact adversely on them.
Many speakers have already spoken on the matter. I am pleased that those ladies who are still alive and those who have departed this life now know that the State believes them. That is important because it is an affirmation for them that we believe them, we accept responsibility and while we cannot give back the years that were spent in the laundries, we must try as best we can to make reparations in an efficient, effective and sensitive manner. We must learn from other schemes that were not as sensitive as they were intended to be.
I commend the Minister of State for her work. We will debate the issue further. I hope she will take some of the points I have made on board.
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch. Like other speakers I thank her for the work she has done and her unfailing belief in the women who were treated in this way. She never gave up. When she went into government she worked even harder on the issue. We are all grateful to be present for the debate as it is a sign that we have moved on.
I wish to start my contribution with a quote. “As a class the majority of these girls spring from the ordinary labouring family, some from the decent small farmer, a few from the riff-raff of the small back street population...[and] the majority of cases come from country districts, often from isolated places in the west.” That is a 1941 description of women, particularly young women who appeared before the Central Criminal Court for infanticide, murder, concealment of birth and other crimes. The language from 1941 indicates how women were viewed, particularly young pregnant women. It was written by a probation officer. His report talks about "fallen women", "moral decadence", "immoral character" and "neglect of essential moral training". Although the short report, which I have to hand, does discuss the need for care and support for women, the overall thrust of the report is that this is a group of unfortunate women who need punishment and then perhaps some guidance. The document appears in the appendices of the Magdalen report. I am drawn to it because it is of the time. It is official Ireland showing its views, attitude and use of language. It tells the story of how women, young women and girls were viewed and ultimately how they were treated. The fact that Ireland had signed up and continued to sign up to various conventions under international law, unfortunately, did not stop us treating people with contempt. In a way the report encapsulates that. This is at the heart of what I describe as Ireland, the lock-up State – industrial schools, county homes, psychiatric hospitals, mother and baby homes, poor houses and Magdalen laundries. We seem to be a lock-up State.
Even though the words of the probation officer were written about those who appeared in court, they clearly speak for the women in the Magdalen laundries too. They were something of a problem, a kind of nuisance, something to be dismissed. Whether there were ten, 100, 11,000 or 30,000, that was the view that was taken. We are pleased that we have moved on from 1941. We have made progress. Unfortunately, it was the women themselves who having been dismissed once before as a kind of riff-raff, who had to face yet again being dismissed, except this time they stood their ground. They fought the fight and they won. They won more than an apology, not just compensation or perhaps the right to become involved in a redress scenario, or even a memorial – all of those facts are incredibly important, but most important, they won the right to speak as equals, to be listened to and to know that they matter. That is a huge achievement and I welcome and applaud it because it shows that we are growing up as a society. We are accepting that old ways were not right or fair. We are beginning to acknowledge our past and our grave mistakes.
It is unfortunately a painfully slow process, to which those women and many others will testify. In many ways it cannot be speeded up because there is so much to move and shift, so many attitudes to change, so many people set in their ways and yet that is the clear challenge to Mr. Justice Quirke, the Ministers involved and the officials. The next stage of the process is as important as this first step of apology. It will be important to have patience, as the women have shown they had, but it is equally important that after the next three months Mr. Justice Quirke will set out a clear path for how those precious, wonderful women will be helped. The Department of Justice and Equality will need to appoint a central point of contact who can assist, direct and advise women in this uncertain time for them. Some might need an independent advocate. Many speakers have referred to the women overseas, who must not be left out, and more importantly, must not be constrained by time – that if they come forward in the future that they will not be told that there was a time constraint.
There are many other matters relating to the way women are treated now and due care must be taken that the process is transparent, not dragged out for months or years and that provision is made for medical and housing needs. Justice for Magdalenes has put together a clear list of needs. I am sure the Minister of State is more than aware of it. That should be heeded and taken into account by everyone setting out the next course of action. The warnings about redress failure should also be heeded.
Finally, we must decide whether to pursue the entire story of the Magdalens, to tell the whole truth, not just the version of the truth that is found in the McAleese report. Good as it was, the report is limited. I refer to the hard labour, pain, abuse, silence and the disgraceful behaviour. I believe we should gather the whole story.
One could ask what we should do about the women who are still fighting for various causes, fighting for justice and truth. Could we find a way to ensure that those involved in the fights for people who have suffered injustice do not have to sacrifice their lives and fight for their rights? This is a democracy and a so-called civilised society so perhaps some kind of permanent commission of inquiry, as previously called for by my colleague, Senator Aideen Hayden, might be an answer and might reduce the pain and adversarial approach we have come to recognise among the groups that are fighting for what is only their right.
These are women; they are not Magdalen women. That label has been attached to them for far too long and it is over time to remove it. I applaud them all and those who worked tirelessly with them and on their behalf. As another woman, I add my apology for the hurt they have suffered throughout their life at the hands of the State and us, the people of this State.
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch. I always value her contribution to this House. I hope that the next time they meet in the Lazy Daisy Café in Notting Hill – it will be famous now – she can say that 60 Senators and 166 Deputies will be there with her in spirit. I agree with everything other Senators have said.
Owen Skeffington, one of my predecessors, tried to persuade the House that adults should not beat children. John Boland, also a Member of this House, implemented the measure. I do not know where the tradition of physical force that is found throughout the McAleese report came from. The right to beat other people was accepted so casually, as was the right to imprison them. There are so many awful things in the report. I commend former Senator McAleese on his report. On page 26 of the report there is reference to the mass exhumation and cremation of people in High Park in 1993 in order to sell the site to a property developer. To do such a thing makes one think of the worst excesses of Nazism yet it happened in this city. It is a sign of a lack of respect for people’s human rights. I refer also to the level of judgmentalism towards women who live what would now be regarded as a normal life.
Our prohibition on family planning was enforced in the most ruthless way against those who infringed it, many of whom were exiled.
Senator Bacik referred to a book on coercive confinement in Ireland written by Eoin O'Sullivan and Ian O'Donnell, which cites the following statement by Ciaran McCullough:
It is certainly part of Irish ‘folklore’ that the use of mental hospitals to dispose of ‘surplus’ children was an important resource in the preservation of the inheritance system in rural Ireland. A son, inheriting from the father and bringing a wife into a farm which could only offer a subsistence income, may not have been pleased with the presence of his unmarried and ageing brothers and sisters in the household. Commitment to mental hospital may have seemed an attractive solution in these circumstances.
As O'Sullivan and O'Donnell show, from the 1920s through to the 1970s, we incarcerated on average 30,000 people per annum, including approximately 6,000 people in institutions that were investigated previously and perhaps 1,000 in the laundries, although the numbers in respect of the laundries differ.
Ireland had an incredible culture of locking up people. Families locked up their family members in mental hospitals. Notwithstanding our discussions about what happened to the women who were so disgracefully treated, they also had fathers and brothers. As O'Sullivan and O'Donnell note on page 268 of their book, members of the religious congregations were not recruiting people for their institutions, families were leaving people they did not want.
As the Taoiseach so graphically stated, the Magdalen laundries illustrates the level of hypocrisy in this country. While we were inventing an image of ourselves as an island of saints and scholars, appalling things were taking place. I met some of those who have been involved in this issue, including Shane Butler who gave me a copy of the book, Birds' Nest Soup, by Hanna Greally who was locked up for 18 years in Mullingar Mental Hospital for no reason. In her book, Ms Greally wrote of thinking of the friends she made at the hospital, "the outcasts, the unloved, the incurably embittered and dispirited", who were "still fighting for their liberty". We must end of all of that and support the Minister of State and the people she met at the Lazy Daisy Café as they seek to make it up to those affected. Everyone in the House agrees on this.
The use of violence within families towards mothers, sisters and daughters that the McAleese report encaptures is a shameful episode. I wish the Minister of State and Mr. Justice Quirke the best of luck in completing their task quickly. Given that they made such an impression on us all last week, perhaps the ladies in question will be invited back in three months to be briefed on how much progress has been made on their case. Everybody supports the Minister of State's efforts on this matter.
For the information of the House, it is proposed to adjourn at 7.30 p.m. I have a long list of speakers.
I presume the discussion will resume next week.
Yes, if we adjourn, statements will resume next week.
I welcome the opportunity to recognise the Magdalen women for the work they have done and courage they have shown in coming forward to tell their story. It has been a long road for them. As an earlier speaker noted, this is not the end of the road but the start of a new chapter, one which I hope will be bright. I also commend the women's supporters and those who worked with them and helped them tell their story.
In his report, the former Senator, Dr. Martin McAleese, noted that 10,000 women entered the Magdalen institutions between 1922 and 1996. I was in the Dáil Chamber when the Taoiseach delivered his speech on the report and it was a very moving and important occasion. He recognised all the Magdalen women, not only the cases in which the State was identified by former Senator McAleese as having had a role. None of us can transplant ourselves to those times. Society as a whole was involved and people knew in some way what was taking place. The State was also aware of what was happening, for example, the report refers to inspectors of factories visiting the laundries under the provisions of the Factories Act. Given the State's involvement in the laundries, it was appropriate that the Taoiseach's apology was directed at all the Magdalen women and that all of them will be included in the study being carried out by Mr. Justice Quirke.
Dr. McAleese took on an onerous task. He took his role very seriously, working long hours and keeping his work under lock and key. He was moved by the stories related by the Magdalen women and glad to be offered the opportunity to chair the interdepartmental committee and prepare his report. We thank him for his professional investigation into the State's involvement in the Magdalen laundries. I am sure more of the story of the Magdalen women needs to be told.
I acknowledge the role of the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch. She and the Minister for Justice and Equality and Justice, Deputy Alan Shatter, frequently raised the issue of the Magdalen laundries when they were opposition spokespersons in the previous Dáil. As she outlined in her statement, the Minister of State did tremendous work on this issue with the Magdalen women to help ensure their voices could be heard and a process found to have the State provide restitution. I hope the solution will be practical, effective, address the needs of the women and, in some way, make up for the wrongs done to them in the past.
I am pleased the Minster of State will meet the religious orders. I acknowledge the co-operation of the orders in providing all their records, without which we would not have reached this point. It is also important that they make a financial contribution and I have no doubt the Minister of State and Minister for Justice and Equality will speak plainly to them on this issue when they meet.
I look forward to the proposed memorial and appreciate that the women will have an important input in its design. It will be fitting to have a memorial to remind us of a stark part of our past. I am under no illusion that the report marks the end of this chapter and I have no doubt there are other sad stories to be told which will show that holy Catholic Ireland, the land of saints and scholars, was not always a holy place. As a result of the McAleese report, the Magdalen women can finally say that somebody believed them. It is an important development that they have expressed satisfaction with the words of the Taoiseach, Minister for Justice and Equality and Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch.
I first heard about the Magdalen laundries 21 years ago this month when I saw a wonderful play, "Eclipsed", by Patricia Burke Brogan. In the aftermath of the production of her play, Ms Burke Brogan stated:
... there was some backlash and I really suffered with that play. I had someone cut my picture out of the paper and draw horns and different symbols on it and send it to me. I got up one morning and this had been thrown in the door, which was very upsetting and hard to handle. People thought I was being anti-Church but I wasn't. Everyone blamed the sisters, but the State did nothing to intervene.
Her words sum up what took place. To say the McAleese report on the Magdalen laundries makes for difficult reading would not even begin to cover its contents - it is upsetting and very traumatic. As Patricia Burke Brogan would agree, what she suffered was nothing compared to what the women in the laundries suffered. It was great that she brought these events to light in the manner in which she did.
It is said that a picture can paint a thousand words. For me, this saying was especially borne out by a photograph printed in the Irish Examiner some weeks ago showing gardaí surrounding Magdalen women during a Corpus Christi march several decades ago. The police cordon was not to protect the women but to hem them in.
These institutions were not the places of refuge or comfort which some would have led us to believe. They were effectively prisons, often holding women against their will and in many instances for many years. For those women, the State took away their youth, and their lives became a miserable drudgery, with many dying in the laundries alone and isolated. The State used these institutions as a place to deal with a multitude of social problems, including illegitimacy, poverty, disability and so on. The religious orders in turn used these girls and women as unpaid labour. These were ordinary women who did not deserve their fate. Crucially, many never got to hear the State apologise, which is a shame. Others had to wait far too long for the State to apologise.
The purpose of Dr. McAleese's report was explore the issue of State involvement, which the former Minister, Batt O'Keeffe, on behalf of the then Government, denied in 2009. His denial that the State referred individuals to the Magdalen laundries has been proven a falsehood. There was never any cause to doubt the women's account as there was already mountains of evidence in that regard.
I must ask the Senator to adjourn the debate.
I would like to make a few other remarks as I may not get an opportunity to do so next week. I concur with what has been said previously, particularly with Senator van Turnhout's remarks in regard to direct provision. Last week, I commended the Taoiseach on making the State apology. It is hoped that there will not be a need for a future Taoiseach to make a State apology on behalf of people in direct provision. The Minister of State has heard previously what Senator van Turnhout and I have had to say on that matter. We need to act on direct provision. It is hoped that the redress scheme put in place is suitable and fit for purpose.
Debate adjourned.
When is it proposed to sit again?
Ar 10.30 maidin amárach.