Skip to main content
Normal View

Magdalen Laundries

Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 6 February 2013

Wednesday, 6 February 2013

Questions (5)

Maureen O'Sullivan

Question:

5. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if, in progressing the issues relating to the Magdalen laundries, he is considering an apology and a redress and restorative justice scheme; and if he will establish a dedicated helpline and outreach service to provide much needed assistance for the ladies of the laundries. [6093/13]

View answer

Oral answers (5 contributions)

I announced yesterday the publication of the final report of the interdepartmental committee, independently chaired by former Senator, Dr. Martin McAleese, to establish the facts of State involvement with the Magdalen laundries. The report is extensive and detailed and, as has been stated in the House yesterday and today, runs to over 1,100 pages spanning the decades from 1922 onwards.

I thank Dr. McAleese for chairing the committee. In producing such a comprehensive report, it is fair to say that he brought integrity and independence to the work which was instrumental in having the full co-operation of all the agencies involved, the religious congregations, and the women affected.

I thank the many women who were able to tell their stories of what being in a Magdalen laundry meant for them, and the effects this had on their lives. I would also like to thank the religious congregations who gave their full co-operation and made their records available to the committee, and the many representative and advocacy groups who assisted the committee in every way possible. Finally, I thank the members of the committee for their work.

The report tells a complex story, spanning the decades from the establishment of the State onwards. We now know that approximately 10,000 women entered Magdalen laundries since 1922, through a whole range of different routes. These included State referrals as well as placements of women by many others, including significant numbers by their own families. We now also know that just over 60% of these women spent one year or less in the laundries and 35% spent three months or less there.

Much of the information in the report has never previously been made public. Among other elements, it records the stories of women entering the laundries over the decades and documents some past practices which had been long since forgotten. In this way, the report gives an extraordinary insight not only into the operation of the Magdalen laundries, but also into the social realities of past times.

I hope that publication of the report will be of comfort to the women directly concerned. I appreciate that many women have lived their lives under a cloud because of the stigma that has attached to their residence in the Magdalen laundries, irrespective of the circumstances which resulted in their admission and regardless of how much time they spent there. This stigma was undeserved and its removal is long overdue.

The committee's report clearly illustrates that the stigma derives from misconceptions relating to how women came to be in the laundries. The report also details that the laundries were cold and harsh places. I regret it was not until July 2011 that action was initiated on behalf of the State to undertake a comprehensive examination of the circumstances that applied in the laundries and the impact they had on many of the women who resided there. I am sorry the State did not do more and the Government recognises that the women alive today who are still affected by their time in the laundries deserve the best supports that the State can provide.

The report includes a significant amount of new information and it is important that time is given for it to be reflected on and for former residents of the laundries and others to give a considered response. As the Deputy knows, it is intended there will be a debate in the Dáil on the report in two weeks' time and, pending that debate, the report will be given full consideration by members of Cabinet who received it yesterday and who were briefed on its contents by Dr. McAleese.

It is interesting to note the first parliamentary question about the Magdalen laundries was asked in 1938. It has taken quite a while to get from 1938 to 2013, when we now know the facts and everything that has been established. The committee hopes the report "will be a real step in bringing healing and peace of mind to all concerned, most especially the women whose lived experience of the Magdalen Laundries had a profound and enduring negative effect on their lives". On the radio this morning Felice Gaer from the UN Committee against Torture stated the State must ensure the women obtain redress and have an enforceable right to compensation. The report is complex and the best tribute to it is to start acting on what has been found. There is no doubt there was State complicity. Will the Minister offer a dedicated unit in the Department to work with Justice for Magdalenes to address these issues and look for what the ladies have been looking for, starting with an apology?

I was on the radio this morning immediately after the lady from the UN Committee against Torture and I noted she told us she read the summary, which is a short chapter at the start, but she had not read the rest of the report. It would be helpful if individuals internationally, as well as everyone at home, read the report in full. I could not be oblivious to the fact that much of the comment made yesterday, because everyone in this new media age is supposed to instantly have an opinion on everything, was comment made by people who could not possibly have read the report. I know how many hours it took me to read it from start to finish. I reiterate people should read the report.

I am very proud of the fact that this Government, at the initiative of myself and my good colleague the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, established this inquiry. I had campaigned for a long time for the full story of the Magdalen laundries to be known. Previous Governments had not been prepared to have an inquiry. We owe a genuine debt of gratitude to Dr. Martin McAleese for the extraordinary work he did. It was very important it was an independent chairman and that there was no doubt about the independence of the report and its absolute integrity. This was of crucial importance.

It should be fairly acknowledged that publication of the report by Dr. McAleese yesterday was a major step forward because for the first time we have a comprehensive authoritative account. Groups and individuals have campaigned, groups who resided in the laundries have been telling their stories and there have been various publications, but the report contains information which was not previously published. We now know that 26% of the residents found themselves in the homes as a result of State involvement. This means 74%, the majority of those who were resident, ended up being residents in the homes for other reasons. Tragically, some were put there by their own families. Others, because they were in difficult financial circumstances and destitute, sought to reside there themselves. Others were referred by well-meaning people who had nothing to do with the State. We also know the length of residence is not always as understood. The aspect of the story which had been told was the story of the many women who had been living in the laundries for many years, and quite clearly a number had this terrible experience. It was never really understood that 61% of the residents resided in the laundries for a year or less.

In the context of State involvement on the criminal justice side, out of the 10,000 approximate residents that Dr. McAleese could identify, in excess of 600 came through the criminal justice system. Some of these were individuals placed on remand by the courts and in this context the courts had the choice of whether they spent a few days or weeks in a prison or went to a Magdalen laundry. The report shows a number of individuals were there for a matter of days or a short few weeks. The people about whom we should be genuinely concerned, in the context of the Government and my Cabinet colleagues considering how we deal with this very important matter, are the individuals who spent extended periods of time in the laundries whose lives have been blighted by this experience who felt because they were resident in the laundries that in some way it was a stigma and something they could not share or tell anyone about. These are people about whom we all have very real concerns.

I know this is an issue about which Deputy O'Sullivan has had a genuine concern for some time, as I and the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, had and as had many people on both sides of the House. This is a first step in dealing with this issue. The Government will give very careful consideration to how we proceed in a manner that is sensitive and of assistance to those who had the terrible experience of being resident in the environment so well described by Dr. McAleese. I believe a very important contribution to the discussion will be made by Members of the House in the debate that will happen in two weeks' time.

It is very difficult to accept what the Minister said with regard to this being the first comprehensive report. Perhaps it is, but on what basis then did the Minister make his comments when he was in opposition about barbaric cruelty and women being treated appallingly and irrefutable evidence of State complicity?

I will now refer to the apology. In 1999, there was an apology to the survivors of industrial schools before the inquiry or the redress scheme. There was a further apology in 2009. Why is it so hard to apologise now, not just on behalf of the Government but also on behalf of the citizens of this State? We are all complicit in this.

Will the Minister at least give a commitment to work with the unit in his Department? I do not know what a two-day debate will achieve. We will have more rhetoric and political footballs. It is much more important to work with the survivors and their groups to address the issues, rather than talking about it for another two days in here.

I am happy the Deputy has quoted what I said because it has proved to be right. I said there was a State involvement and that people lived in barbaric conditions. The report has established that 26% of the residents were referred by the State in various modes, whether it was through the criminal justice system, or individuals who were residents in industrial schools and who were released conditionally on the basis that they would go into the Magdalen laundries for some time. Therefore, my concerns were proven to be correct.

There were suggestions that individuals had not only been emotionally abused but had perhaps been physically or sexually abused. Former Senator McAleese's report establishes that there was not physical or sexual abuse, but there certainly was emotional abuse. The environment in which young women lived was not one within which any of us would wish to live. I am not happy that that is the case but my view of that has been vindicated. That is why, as a Minister, I was determined to establish an inquiry to get maximum information and in circumstances where the maximum records were available. Former Senator McAleese achieved that. He also achieved the co-operation of the religious congregations in getting crucial information. When Deputies read the report, they will see information from the congregations matched against State records. One can then identify the routes through which people found themselves in the laundries.

This is not just a State issue, however, because 74% of the residents came there without the State being engaged or involved. We must consider how we can proceed further. There is a particular issue in the context of how the State deals with that matter. It is different to the industrial schools. Nearly everyone who found themselves in industrial schools was there by virtue of court proceedings, either care proceedings or criminal proceedings. Here we have 74% of people who found themselves resident in laundries in circumstances where there was not a State involvement. This is not about dancing on the head of a pin, it is about examining what needs to be done for those people today, what is fair and how one approaches it. For example, I do not think there is a Deputy in this House who would take the view that someone whom the courts remanded to a Magdalen laundry and who might have lived in a laundry for two, three or four days should be paid compensation. They would have been there briefly and may otherwise have been briefly in prison. It is difficult to talk about these things in this way because it will be portrayed as being unsympathetic.

We set up this committee because of an absolute commitment by this Government, including myself personally and the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, that we would get the full story, following which we would have colleagues consider it and make serious decisions. In fairness to members of the Cabinet, including the Taoiseach, they would not have seen this report until yesterday. They first had a briefing from former Senator McAleese. We live in a world where everyone expects instant answers to everything. The alternative to publishing the report would have been for the Government to retain it for a number of weeks and then announce decisions on foot of it. Instead we took the view that the women had been waiting for many years to have their story vindicated. We also took the view that there should be transparency and that the moment former Senator McAleese completed it it should be published. It was published so quickly that the final chapter came to me on Monday morning. We were anxious to publish it for the women's sake, to give Members of the House a full insight into the background, and then move on to consider how we can deal in a humane, considered and careful way with the consequences of what people experienced. That is the Government's intention.

Top
Share