Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 29 Jan 2015

Vol. 865 No. 3

Redress for Women Resident in Certain Institutions Bill 2014: Second Stage (Resumed)

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I want to support the Bill which, in essence, will provide free health services for women who were residents of the Magdalen laundries and similar laundries that were operated such as St. Mary's Training Centre, Stanhope Street, Dublin.

The Bill also provides that such women will not be required to pay the statutory charge for public acute hospital inpatient services and that the ex gratia payments will not be included in the financial assessment of means under the Nursing Homes Support Scheme Act 2009.

However, I am concerned that the Magdalen laundries have been excluded from the commission of investigation into mother and baby homes which the Government is establishing this week. The mother and baby homes and Magdalen laundries were both parts of Ireland's architecture of containment of so-called "problem" women and, as such, should be investigated under the commission of investigation. Their exclusion from the commission's remit is unacceptable.

As regards the contents of the Bill, the proposals as outlined do not fully reflect the recommendations outlined by Mr. Justice Quirke. The Quirke scheme's proposals for those affected included full pension rights and the granting of a medical card similar to that given to State-infected hepatitis C survivors under the HAA card scheme.

A report by Martin McAleese was initiated in June 2011 to investigate the Magdalen laundries. This report charts the grim details of the experiences of at least 10,000 women. However, up to 12,000 women had been resident in the ten Magdalen laundries operated by four religious orders in the reference period from 1922 to 1996. The inhumane conditions of work, the de facto slave labour status of the women involved and the gross unfairness of their indefinite incarceration in the laundries represented a grave breach of their human rights. The evidence definitely reveals that the Irish State colluded in the operation of the laundries. The justice system essentially sent women to the laundries, the services of which were then availed of by State agencies such as hospitals. The courts sent women to the laundries, with some 26% of entries via the State system, while gardaí returned runaways to them. The process was evidently not voluntary in nature. The State failed the women involved by not implementing effective supervision of the laundries, upholding its own health and safety standards or making provision in respect of the women's educational and social welfare rights. Approximately 1,000 survivors of the Magdalen laundries are still alive. The United Nations Committee Against Torture accused the State of grievously breaching the human rights of these women and its report led the Government to initiate the McAleese inquiry.

Justice for Magdalenes Research, the National Women's Council of Ireland, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and Amnesty International have called on the Government to honour the promise it made to the survivors in June 2013 to implement all of Mr. Justice Quirke's recommendations in respect of a Magdalen restorative justice scheme. Criticising the Bill before the House, Maeve O'Rourke of Justice for Magdalenes Research stated:

This draft legislation does not meet Judge Quirke’s recommendation on healthcare for Magdalene women. It is an obvious and unacceptable paring back of what the Government promised as part of the women’s redress package. Judge Quirke could not have been clearer in recommending that each woman should receive a card entitling her to the full range of health services provided to state-infected Hepatitis-C survivors under the HAA card scheme. Instead, the Bill promises little more than the regular medical card, which most of the women already have.

Dr. Katherine O'Donnell of the same organisation stated:

The women who have received their lump sum compensation and pensions have promised not to sue the State in exchange for the full redress package recommended by Judge Quirke. However, this legislation is in clear breach of the women’s legitimate expectations [and of the promise made to them in 2013.

Claire McGettrick, also of the same organisation, added:

Without explanation, the Government has also ignored Judge Quirke’s recommendation to extend the Nursing Homes Support Scheme Act 2009 to Magdalene women who lack full capacity so that applications to the Magdalene scheme can be made on their behalf and their assets can be managed by a court-appointed representative in their best interests. It is imperative that legislation is introduced immediately to protect women in institutionalised settings, to provide independent advocates and ensure that their interests are protected.

Finally, Orla O'Connor of the National Women's Council of Ireland stated:

The Bill as currently proposed is a further denial of the rights of women survivors of the Magdalene Laundries. It undermines the Scheme as proposed by Judge Quirke, which provided only minimal recognition for the abuse women suffered. A particular area of concern is the denial of full pension entitlements for the women. Judge Quirke clearly recommended that the women should be treated as if they had made full pension contributions ... The women urgently require this compensation so as to provide a decent standard of living in their older years.

These criticisms come almost exactly 23 months after Taoiseach's apology to Magdalen laundry survivors on 19 February 2013. The Taoiseach received much praise for that apology and rightfully so. It was an apology that was long overdue from the State to these women. However, the Bill before us is a betrayal of the women to whom the Taoiseach apologised. The satisfaction felt by the women who were present in the Visitors' Gallery to receive that apology is turning to dust because the actions of the Taoiseach and his Government are failing to honour the recommendations set out in the Quirke report. Of course, the Taoiseach has won plaudits for standing up to the church in terms of the way he dealt with the Cloyne report and in the context of his apology in respect of the Magdalen laundries. The Taoiseach is one of the longest-serving Members of the House. In that context, the fact that he waited almost three decades before he found the courage to offer an apology should have been a pointer with regard to his real commitment on these issues. It took him 30 years to become man enough to apologise to the women involved. During his first 20 years as a Deputy, these laundries were in existence and their activities were well known within society. However, it was only after 30 years that the Taoiseach saw fit to apologise. He expects us to engage in a whitewash in respect of the Quirke report by ignoring the recommendations it contains. By refusing to engage on this issue for such a long period, the Taoiseach did a great disservice to both the House and to himself, as a Member of it. That is appalling.

It is incumbent on the Taoiseach to issue another apology to the women affected. There can be no fake apology on this occasion. He must avoid remaining silent on this issue and explain the rationale for not ensuring that the survivors of the laundries will live out their lives in the best possible circumstances. In issuing a second apology, the Taoiseach owes it to the women to behave in the way he did in the House three years ago when he found himself in a very demanding situation. I ask the Labour Party to ensure that the women involved obtain justice. At the very least, the minimum they require is that which is set out in the Quirke report. It would be appalling if those in the Labour Party allowed the Taoiseach to somersault down the steps opposite before making another empty apology. Following through on the recommendations contained in the Quirke report is the correct way to honour the victims of what was a very dark period in our history. I ask the Labour Party to ensure that the Taoiseach honours the survivors of the laundries.

Any discussion on the Magdalen laundries, either inside or outside the House, conjures up images of a dark period in the history of our country. Such images are of women who were slaves in the institutions in question - which were run by religious orders - and who were treated in a terrible fashion. These women were either not paid or paid very little for what they did. One of the difficulties I have with the McAleese report is the exclusion of any reference to the money the churches made from the operation of these institutions. The churches made lots of money from them but the report fails to mention that fact.

That is history at this stage. We will not be able to turn that around but it does not stop legislators asking what the church has done, apart from apologising, to ensure the welfare of these slaves given how they were treated.

When the McAleese report was presented, there was commentary to the effect that the legacy of the problem dates from when we were occupied by our neighbours. This is true but the record shows that when we took over the establishment from the British, both the churches and politicians buried their heads in respect of the treatment the women were receiving. This Dáil, the 31st, is the first Parliament in our history to have addressed this issue. I am not suggesting that, as a consequence, we should be very proud and slap ourselves on the backs but we have at least reached a stage where the women who are still alive - many have passed on - will be treated courteously and where their suffering will be acknowledged. A question arises as to how to make the rest of their lives as palatable as possible. That is what we are trying to do in this legislation. What occurred is part of the hidden history of Ireland. All these matters should be brought out into the open. What happened is a shameful part of our past but we should not ignore it.

Deputy Keaveney made reference to the politics of the matter. I can say with some pride that he and I fought an election campaign for the only political party that referred in its manifesto to the Magdalen laundries. Subsequently, Deputy Keaveney deserted my party and went elsewhere. There are aspects of manifestoes of which I may not be terribly proud but I am proud that my party's one is the only one that referred to the Magdalen laundries. Both Deputy Keaveney and I appreciate that, and quite rightly so.

Other Members, including Deputy Keaveney, mentioned the HAA card. If we are to resolve this matter fully to the satisfaction of the remaining women who were victims of terrible treatment in the institutions, as we should, we should make its entitlements available. Irrespective of how the women were treated in the past, Members should end this matter once and for all by treating the women properly at the end of their lives. We should not repeat what happened.

I refer to an article in this week's Irish Examiner that made reference to Magdalen campaigners and human rights groups addressing the Government's legislation on the Redress for Women Resident in Certain Institution Bill 2014. They called the Bill "unacceptable, unfair and full of broken promises". Sinn Féin is in full accord with the assessment of these groups.

Last month, the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, presented the Bill as the Government's solution to outstanding issues in the promised health care support package for Magdalen survivors. At a joint press conference in Dublin, Justice for Magdalenes Research, the National Women's Council of Ireland, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and Amnesty International all said the Government package fell well short of what was recommended by Mr. Justice John Quirke.

Lawyer and Justice for Magdalenes Research member Maeve O'Rourke called the legislation "an obvious and unacceptable paring back of what the Government promised as part of the women's redress package". Mr. Justice Quirke recommended that each woman receive a card entitling her to the full range of health services provided to State-infected hepatitis C survivors under the Health (Amendment) Act card scheme. Instead, the Bill promises little more than the regular medical card. The Quirke report stated 91% of Magdalen survivors already have a medical card or GP visit card. Therefore, what and where are the additional services promised? The women had a legitimate expectation of receiving other services, which were omitted from the Bill and which are available to HAA cardholders. They range from private GP services, access to high-tech drugs and complementary therapies, including massage, reflexology, acupuncture, aromatherapy and hydrotherapy, to counselling from any professionally accredited counsellor, comprehensive dental care, audiology services from private practitioners where services are not available within the public health service and private physiotherapy services. None of these is included in the Bill.

It is essential to note that, on page 35 of his report, Mr. Justice Quirke states:

In addition to the HAA card, each of the HSE areas provides a person, described as a hepatitis C liaison officer, whose role it is to ensure that persons who are entitled to the HAA card receive the services to which they are entitled under the legislation. The liaison officer fulfils an important role and is responsible for coordinating and assisting the card holder to access primary care services...

This is yet one more critical element absent from the Government's proposed Bill.

In the critical area of mental capacity, the group said Mr. Justice Quirke's report recommended that the Nursing Homes Support Scheme Act 2009 be extended to Magdalen women who lack full capacity. This measure is necessary in order that applications to the redress scheme can be made on their behalf and their assets can be managed by a court-appointed representative in their best interest. However, as with the heath care deficiencies, this is just one more critical recommendation that has been ignored within the context of the Bill, without explanation of any kind.

The Government needs to explain why it is not providing for the appointment of care representatives. Have appropriate assessments been carried out to determine which women have sufficient capacity to manage their affairs and which women do not? Has the Department of Justice and Equality accepted any application from a religious order and made a payment in respect of a woman who lacks full capacity but who is not already a ward of court or the subject of an enduring power of attorney? This is just one more critical recommendation that has been ignored within the context of the Bill, without explanation of any kind.

The Magdalen women’s supporters and human rights advocates who were present at the meeting addressing the Bill claimed the Government was refusing to back-date pension entitlements, despite Mr. Justice Quirke's recommendation that survivors be treated as if they had made full pension contributions. Mr. Colm O'Gorman of Amnesty International Ireland said it was "shocking" that the Government continued to claim that the McAleese inquiry was a comprehensive investigation. He stated:

We remind the Government that women and girls in these institutions experienced a range of human rights abuses including inhuman and degrading treatment, arbitrary deprivation of liberty and forced labour. We call on the Government to live up to its obligations in the Quirke Scheme.

Dr. Katherine O'Donnell of Justice for Magdalenes Research claimed the waivers the women signed promising not to sue the State in return for redress are on "shaky ground" as the legislation is "in clear breach of the women's legitimate expectations".

The Government agreed in public and on the Dáil record to implement Mr. Justice Quirke's recommendations in full. Justice for Magdalenes Research believes that if the Government reneges on its promise to implement those recommendations in full, the women's waivers will be rendered legally unenforceable. Justice for the survivors of the Magdalen laundries must be seen to be done. The proposed Government Bill, as now constituted, fails to do that.

I was not in this Chamber two years ago but I watched on my television as the current Taoiseach, Deputy Enda Kenny, made a very moving and impassioned speech to the Magdalen women.

In fact, during the course of the speech, the Taoiseach was even moved to tears. However, when we look at what is on offer for those women today we would have to conclude they were crocodile tears, not real tears. I printed out his speech. It states, "As a society ... we failed you. We forgot you ... This is a national shame", and he promised them a "new dawn for all those who feared that the dark midnight might never end." He even quoted from the song, "Whispering Hope". It is clear that all of the women's groups that have come together that have been cited by previous TDs on the Oppositions benches here are hardly doing it for fun. The Government is back-tracking on what it promised these women and their health and pension entitlements.

By the way, the Government has not conducted investigations into these situations at any time. The McAleese report was a whitewash. It never should have been conducted by somebody who was a devout Catholic, a well-known pillar of the establishment and well-known for his religious views, and hardly likely to produce the most independent report.

These are women who signed up for a minimal redress and yet they put their faith in the Government. They believed the tears that the Taoiseach shed, but now we find that the Government is back-tracking on the most basic health care. For many of these women, some of whom I have met who have lung cancer, who have a limited time to live and who in many cases are in the twilight of their years, the recommendations of Mr. Justice Quirke, as has been stated, were for a full HAA card exactly like what applies to the women who were the victims of the tragedy of the hepatitis C scandal.

There are seven deficits in what was recommended by Mr. Justice Quirke and given today by the Government. First, hepatitis C victims are facilitated within two weeks to see many doctors. All of the women have medical cards in general, but a medical card, as the Minister should know well, does not mean one gets swift treatment, and one could be sitting on a waiting list for years. These women were treated like slaves. The least we can offer them is that they will get swift treatment. They should be in the Blackrock Clinic, not sitting on public health waiting lists. The second recommendation was access to necessary medicines, high-tech drugs, aids and appliances that one cannot get on the medical card. The third one related to counselling. The fourth one was what the Minister disingenuously yesterday called "alternative therapies", which are actually called "complementary therapies" - those words were not accidental. We are not talking about Angel Healing, which I heard somebody mention. We are talking about obvious benefits to women's health and well-being, such as massage, manipulation-based therapies and hydrotherapy, reflexology and acupuncture. All of those have had benefits for those who have illnesses, such as rheumatism. The women are not getting liaison officers. They themselves will have to battle away in the creaking health services. Another recommendation was independent representation and advocates for those who are in nursing homes or may have more limited capacity.

The other issue is full pension entitlements. Mr. Justice Quirke recommended that the women should be treated as if they had made full contributions and the Government is now refusing to back-date that. It is incredible that the State, for example, paid compensation of €33 million to a developer for a site worth €3 million, the Harcourt Street Garda station site, just before Christmas without a bother and yet it is penny-pinching today for the women who were victims of the State and church abuse over the years. I am not surprised. It is part of a long pattern in this country where women, in particular poor women and working class women, had their lives and bodies controlled by the State and by the church.

For the past 90 years, the State, in particular, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, gave inordinate power to religious orders to control the lives of young people and the lives of women. Today, it is being continued. It has not ended. People talk about a dark past. This is not the past. The church in this country has inordinate power, in particular over health and education. This morning on the radio we heard about parents who have to get baptismal certificates to get their children into schools where they live. This is a common practice in my constituency, Dublin West, which is the youngest in Western Europe, where there is a shortage of school places. I would like the Minister of State, Deputy Ó Ríordáin, to answer why a former Labour Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Quinn, saw fit to give control of a secondary school that is being established in Tyrrelstown in my area - the most multiethnic place in the country with 51% non-Irish - to a Catholic conglomerate called Le Chéile, which includes the religious order Good Shepherd Sisters - the charity sisters who ran these Magdalen laundries - and the symbol of which is a cross. It is an insult to the Hindus, Muslims, atheists and non-believers in the area. The Government has not ended the church control of education. These orders, by the way, have been noticeable in their lack of apologies and lack of compensation to these women.

In the area of health, the Government continues to give the church control over maternity services and women's health in an inordinate way. Under the eighth amendment, a crying shame, a woman is equated with a foetus. Over Christmas we saw the disgraceful case of a clinically dead pregnant woman being kept alive.

Would Deputy Coppinger stick to the Bill that we are debating?

This is very much related to the way that women were treated by the church-----

Deputy Coppinger should stick to the Bill.

-----and the State in this country, if the Ceann Comhairle does not mind. It is very relevant.

The Deputy should stick to the Bill.

My point is it is part of a pattern. It has been continued and it has not ended. Previous speakers who the Ceann Comhairle may not have heard of claimed that this is in our dark past.

Finally, what is the State dishing up to lone parents and, as they used to be termed, so-called "unmarried mothers"? Austerity is what they are dishing up. Lone parents have been the biggest victims of cuts, in particular from the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Burton. Apparently, when a lone parent's children are aged seven they should be able to mind themselves and the lone parent should be able to go out and get a job even though there is no affordable child care for parents in this country. The brunt of austerity is being borne largely by women - obviously there are men as well - in these situations.

My point, a Cheann Comhairle, is this: it is very relevant. We are meant to be ending a culture where the church controlled people's lives. I am arguing it is continuing. More importantly, the Bill falls a way short of what the Taoiseach promised these women two years ago. The National Women's Council has said it and many of the advocacy groups for the women have said it. I call on the Minister to not carry on this shame and disgrace of penny-pinching. Of course, this is all about money because, for example, these therapies would cost money.

These women deserve to get privileged treatment in the health service after the treatment that they got from church and State in this country and I am quite surprised to see the Labour Party and others standing over it. One of the Labour members stated he was the only person who mentioned the Magdalen women in his manifesto. I think not. There are many on the left, including in the Anti-Austerity Alliance and People Before Profit, who championed women's rights over the years, and very little thanks to some of the TDs in this Chamber.

For the 10,000 or so women who went through the Magdalen laundries, nothing we can do can undo the trauma and suffering they were put through or can undo the abuse, abandonment, exploitation and cruelty that was visited on them. Many of them are dead and will never see justice, their lives robbed almost entirely from them. The vast majority of those who still survive, most of whom are over 70 and many of whom are over 80, are nearing the end of their lives.

We should leave no stone unturned in ensuring that we do anything and everything possible to give them what redress, restitution and acknowledgement and justice we can, even though nothing we can do can fully undo the crimes that have been committed against them. At this late stage, when we have finally acknowledged the great injustice that has been done to them, we must make every effort and put no obstacle in the way of giving them everything they need to try in some small way to compensate for the suffering and cruelty that was inflicted on them. All of us in this House and, most important, the surviving women themselves, their supporters and family members and advocates believed that when the Taoiseach made the speech in which he apologised to the women and they applauded from the Gallery that the State finally was going to do everything it could to make up for its shameful betrayal and abandonment of those women. As soon as the issue dropped from the headlines, however, and other issues began to preoccupy the wider body politic, the media and public interest, at least from the point of view of the women themselves, and I take their judgment as definitive, the Government started to row back on the great promises it made to those women following what was deemed an historic day in this Chamber. That is shameful. It is miserable, mean-spirited, petty and frankly quite extraordinary that the Government would do that.

In some of the correspondence from the Department it was claimed that certain things that were promised, arising from the Quirke report, were not promised at all. It said there was no promise to provide a similar card to the HAA card which would give access to a full range of health services, as was given to women infected with hepatitis C by the State. The Justice for Magdalenes group had to point out that it was exactly what the Quirke report said. According to the first recommendation of Mr. Justice Quirke: “As an integral part of the ex gratia Scheme a card entitling its holder to health services equivalent to those provided to the holder of a HAA card should be given to each of the women who were admitted to and worked in a designated Magdalen laundry.” That had to be pointed out because Department officials said that was not exactly what was said, when it is exactly what was said. In a miserable, mean-spirited way the Government is rolling back on the commitments and promises made to those women. I appeal to the Government to stop being miserable, disingenuous and hypocritical, given the noble promises, acknowledgements and apologies that were given by it, and just give the women what was promised to them and what they deserve in terms of some sort of restitution and compensation for the suffering that has been inflicted on them.

Another point relates to the provision of advocates and representatives for those who cannot advocate and represent themselves for whatever reason – age, infirmity, disability or other reason - and that the Government would give those supports and services to those women and not try to deny those rights and supports to them in the small print, as it were. We can add to that the issue that was raised yesterday in terms of the motion we debated on the investigation into mother and baby homes. We must accede to the demands of the Justice for Magdalenes group that it would be included in the commission of investigation into mother and baby homes, given that its members are clear and categoric in their view that they do not believe the McAleese report was an adequate or sufficiently comprehensive investigation into the experience of the Magdalen women.

I do not really see how, given the statements made by the Taoiseach and other Government representatives in recent times on this matter, the Government can do anything less. It would be easy, and it would be the honourable and fair thing to do, to live up to those promises and give the commitments to the Magdalen women now rather than the miserable, penny-pinching and disingenuous rolling back in which the Government seems to be engaging.

I have one final point to make, as all the points have been clearly made by the women’s advocacy groups, the women themselves, other supporting groups and by a number of Deputies. The demands are clear and I hope the Minister will accede to them. It is appropriate that the Minister of State with responsibility for equality is present, because the other important point I wish to make in this House is that when all the apologies were made about the shameful treatment of women and children and some of the most vulnerable sectors of society, their abuse, exploitation and incarceration, and the destruction of childhood involved, one of the points made repeatedly is that we must never ever let this happen again. It is important to say that it is happening, as we speak, to another group of people. I refer to people in the direct provision centres. What they share in common is that, again, it is women and children, this time from immigrant minorities coming into this country, often fleeing persecution, cruelty and abuse in other countries, who are now incarcerated and in many cases have been for years. They have been robbed of their lives. We are again failing to provide equality of treatment and human rights that should be extended to all citizens, especially to women and children. That is after all the apologies and acknowledgements are given.

That gives the lie to the pious speeches and noble aspirations that were espoused about the Magdalen laundries in this Chamber being genuine when we still allow the situation to persist for another group of people. The question is whether we will be back here in a few years time saying we did it again to another group of people, and having to discuss compensation, redress, justice and restitution for another group of people. It is utterly disgusting that women and children are being locked up in these centres in the same way, with the same cruelty, as was done to 10,000 women in the Magdalen laundries, as was done to people in the mother and baby homes, the Bethany homes and industrial schools as part of the shocking and shameful architecture of oppression and abuse that dominated this State for most of its history. The time has come to draw a line under that and to give full justice, in so far as we can, to those who have been the victims of this shameful history, and to ensure that those who are currently victims of a similar type of regime are immediately released from their incarceration and abuse.

I wish to share time with Deputy Peter Mathews.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Most of what needs to be said has already been said at this stage, but there are a few points I would like to make. I will support the Bill. It is long overdue, it is necessary and it is an important step in the right direction. I have some concerns and reservations which I will address.

The Bill is the first formal recognition of the abuse, pain and suffering that so many women endured over so many years in certain institutions and at the hands of the State.

It is appropriate that a proper and full scheme be put in place to try to address some of the problems and some of the challenges that face the women concerned. Deputy Boyd Barrett said that nothing could undo the damage that had been done and nothing could take away the fact that so much suffering was endured by these women. They have been extraordinarily brave and resilient in how they have pursued the vindication of their rights over so many years. However, this Bill is an important recognition of their situation, and I hope that some of the measures contained in it will help those women to live out their years with some form of dignity and some degree of relief.

The Bill is a direct result or follows on from the Taoiseach's apology in 2013, which was a very important acknowledgement by the State, coming as it did from the Taoiseach as head of the Government, on behalf of all of us - every man and woman in this State. He apologised for the wrongdoing that was carried out and the abuse and terror endured by those women.

While I acknowledge recent statements, which are to be welcomed, in respect of some of the measures in the Bill, I ask the Minister of State to provide a degree of clarification to the House today. The initial concern was that the full HAA entitlement to a medical card and to all necessary medical services would be provided as recommended in Mr. Justice Quirke's report. It was a key recommendation, and the organisation representing the Magdalen women was extremely disappointed that this did not appear to be clearly enunciated in the Bill. The Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald, yesterday outlined to the House the Government's intention to ensure that all access to required services which was promised and recommended by Mr. Justice Quirke would now be made available. However, I still think some degree of clarification is required. The organisation Justice for Magdalenes has asked why the wording of the Bill limits the number of services in the way it does. For example, they are limited in a way that the Health (Amendment) Act 1996 does not limit them. Another and related issue of significant concern is the fact that ultimate discretion lies with the HSE, which will be the final arbiter or determinant with regard to the format and details of the scheme. That is a genuine cause for concern, which I share. I refer to the very recent and negative experience of how the HSE has dealt with medical cards, with discretionary medical cards and with the requirements of people with certain illnesses. The HSE has fallen short in these instances. I would have a much greater degree of comfort if all of the services available to the beneficiaries of this scheme were to be enunciated clearly in this legislation. There is an opportunity to amend the Bill on Committee and Report Stages and I hope the Government will consider doing so or, at least, give a fair hearing to the Opposition as we try to do so. The survivors are entitled to have a comprehensive list of entitlements rather than a vague aspirational wording. There should be provided a genuinely comprehensive list of entitlements so that they know exactly where they stand as to entitlements.

A number of women, including a number in my constituency, are still living in institutions and they lack sufficient capacity to operate in an independent environment. It is important that they are legally protected and that they are afforded full legal representation. This is a lacuna in the Bill which I hope the Government will address. The number of women in this situation is very small and they deserve the full protection of the State. The Bill should provide that fully backdated pension payments will be made to the women who will benefit from this scheme.

On a more general point, society must repent and make amends, in so far as is humanly possible, for the inhumane treatment of these young girls and young women, as they were, and the extraordinary abuse and marginalisation they suffered. We are all collectively responsible as a society. It is very easy to simply single out religious orders. I would add my voice to the long list of people who criticise the religious orders for the way in which they dealt with and treated these young girls and the failure to provide protection and a dignified place in which to live, work and feel safe. Equally, the Government failed, and this has been acknowledged in the Taoiseach's apology and through the publication of this legislation. However, the families of those girls also are responsible. We hear very little about the families, who in many cases - not in every case - turned these young women out and left them, literally, in the care of these religious orders, to be turned into effective slaves. We all need to reflect on the fact that the culture at the time was horrific. These young women were deemed to be a stain on their families and a stain on their communities, and the convenient and easy solution was to simply give the problem to someone else to deal with. It enrages me to think that is how Irish society dealt with those women, and I hope those days are long behind us.

I echo what Deputy Boyd Barrett said about the conditions in direct provision for asylum seekers, which is an absolute national disgrace, but we are here today to talk about the Magdalen women.

I wish to record how moved I was when listening to Deputy Anne Ferris's contribution yesterday evening. I do not need to repeat the points she made, nor do I think it appropriate to cherry-pick the abuses for which we choose to offer redress. All abuse is wrong, and all women who suffered abuse in institutions and residences deserve to be respected and treated equally. It is unacceptable that certain women in certain homes and women in certain Protestant institutions are excluded from the scheme as proposed. They all deserve recognition and they all deserve restitution, and it is our responsibility as policy-makers and legislators to provide that recognition and restitution. There is no hierarchy of survivors; they have all been dehumanised and victimised and they all deserve our respect, and fair and equal treatment.

I wish to make a brief contribution to this debate, discussion and conversation. It is time for us to have this national conversation on a person-to-person basis. I was deeply touched and moved by Deputy Anne Ferris's contribution last night, coming as it did from a colleague of ours who expressed her feelings.

Equally, I was touched by Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett, who spoke so honestly and in such a profound way, as a man and Member of the Dáil, to awaken in us the understanding that here was a very bad architecture of our Irish psyche. It was not just institutions, convents and laundries, as families also abandoned their flesh and blood. It was something strange. It is a reminder for me, when we are in these places of discourse such as the Dáil or committee rooms, that we are all part of the human family. Our hearts, minds and feelings are all integrated like the texture of a cloth or fabric. It was a very dark stain on the fabric of our Irish nation, people and family.

As Deputy Creighton and other Deputies have stated, we cannot just do something about it in a particular list of areas. We should make every effort to have full outreach to include everybody. Deputies Robert Dowds and Jack Wall described elderly men and women who, after 20 years of enclosed silence in their very beings, just want the truth of the expression of their experience. We must hold the hands of these fellow Irish men and women, some of whom are younger or older. Some of them are still very hurt and damaged. We must let our senses try to reach out to feel their pain and have compassion.

We must practically and pragmatically help them where they need it. It may be financial or emotional, but whatever their needs I appeal to all of us to go the extra mile, improve the arrangement in whatever way we can in committee and be generous. There is no point in being tight-pursed, tight-hearted or tight-minded about this. It is bigger than that. It would be a good example for younger people, who may not have had direct experience, insights or exposure of this darker side of Irish history, to see that we are really concerned in our hearts and minds and give time, resources, money and whatever is needed to make restitution, compensation or a gesture of kindness to the people who have been hurt.

This travels through the generations, which is why Deputy Ferris's story was so touching. It does not just affect the people who were in the institutions; it travels beyond through their families. We have the chance to try to make up the ground, and all I will say is let us do our very best with no pointscoring. Let us throw in all we can, by way of help and kindness, to make up as much as we can to the women and their children, men and women, who had this awful experience. I ask the Minister of State to take on board that we should do all we can.

Next is Deputy Catherine Murphy, who will share time with Deputy Paul Murphy.

I welcome this opportunity to speak on the Bill. One of the frustrations about it is that it should include other issues, on which people are generally supportive, but it does not. These gaps will be the problem. For many of the women, a small number of whom I know, there is a sense of frustration about one particular aspect, which is being believed. I made this point when we were discussing the mother and baby homes. The problem is the women had no control over how the records were kept. In some cases it is very difficult to prove where they were and this is a serious problem.

In some cases meeting the requirements of the redress scheme will mean proving the time spent in the institution, and piecing this together can be difficult. Some particular orders are forthcoming but others, particularly the Sisters of Charity, are most unforthcoming with their information and their records. They are letting down those affected by this issue and themselves by not being forthcoming because we cannot keep dragging out this matter and this will continue to be a glaring inadequacy.

One of the women with whom I have been in contact for a considerable time - I have known her for several decades - gave me a copy of a tape she made in the 1970s. She wanted to ensure she had a record of what she remembered. She needed to piece it together to put her life back together and have some closure. This was not about money for her; it was about something bigger than that, which would allow her live her life with some degree of dignity. She has a very good family around her and she had children, but she comes to me almost every week and we speak about this because she does not have closure. She has been denied the dignity of acknowledgement of where she was. I am sure there are others with fairly similar stories.

The compellability, which is part of the mother and baby homes scheme, is not part of this, whereby one would be sure the records would be obtained. I know this would be a huge undertaking. It is part of the reason I believe the Magdalen laundries should be included, even for this reason alone. The UN Committee against Torture has openly criticised four religious orders and the Vatican for their hesitance to produce the necessary evidence and records and to contribute substantially to the redress scheme. Justice for the Magdalenes has also made criticisms that not all of the recommendations of Mr. Justice Quirke's report, in particular recommendations surrounding health care, are being implemented. We know it is not just about having a medical card but the benefits that go with it. Everything is not being included with regard to the recommendations.

It is important that survivors of the Magdalen institutions are advised that full recourse to the courts is available to them if they so choose. These are all important points.

We have all received correspondence from constituents and non-constituents who were not in the Magdalen laundries but who have expressed their support for the women who were in them. They want this issue to be dealt with in a comprehensive way. The incident in Tuam horrified us all and it made world news, and why would it not? There is a notion that we have a certain reputation when it comes to financial matters, but what impression would people get about this island if we keep showing a nature that is not the true nature of the Irish people?

Deputy Boyd Barrett make a point about the direct provision system, which will be a legacy issue in the future. I know it is an issue about which the Minister of State feels strongly and about which he is determined to do something. The following is the test we must apply to ourselves. If a member of our family left this country because they feared for their life, or for economic reasons, and ended up in a centre such as a direct provision centre, would we find that acceptable? If we would answer "No" to that question, then it is not acceptable here. I know the Minister of State and I would agree on this, but it is not enough to agree on it; collectively, we must act to end that system. Otherwise, we will have people in the Visitors Gallery at some future date, in the same way as we had the women from the Magdalen laundries, and somebody will be in the seat that the Minister of State is in now making an apology. We must take responsibility for these matters. I am not saying there should not be an immigration policy and strategy, and a humane one at that, but it must be done in an efficient and fair way, and this cannot be part of it.

I have received dozens upon dozens of e-mails, as I am sure other Members have, from people who were not in institutions. That shows the attention being paid to the issue of the Magdalen laundries. It involves a very small number of women, but people want it dealt with comprehensively. I hope amendments to the Bill will be accepted to improve it and make sure it deals with the matter in the way people expect, and have a right to expect.

Regarding complementary therapies, if one has lived or existed in a very stressful environment, often one has to manage the stress later in life. Sometimes therapies can be helpful in managing stress and keeping people well. By excluding their provision, we may not be giving people the tools that would eliminate the type of stress that could become a health care problem for them. There must be an open mind on this, or a different definition for it, but such provision should not be excluded.

Two years ago the Taoiseach made an apology here. He spoke of national shame, referring to the incredible, horrific abuse, incarceration and exploitation of over 10,000 women, in which the church and State were both complicit and guilty. His speech was supposed to represent a significant turning point, putting that in the past, as something never to be repeated. It was a recognition, and obviously an apology, to those women and their families. The Taoiseach apologised unreservedly to all those women for the hurt that was done to them and for any stigma they suffered, but he also said:

In reflecting on this report, I have come to the view that these women deserve more than this formal apology, important though it is. I also want to put in place a process by which we can determine how best to help and support the women in their remaining year. ... That is why the Government has today asked the President of the Law Reform Commission, Judge John Quirke, to undertake a three month review and to make recommendations as to the criteria that should be applied in assessing the help that the Government can provide in the areas of payments and other supports, including medical cards, psychological and counselling services and other welfare needs.

Mr. Justice Quirke then reported in quite a simple and straightforward fashion, one that was minimal from the point of the women. However, the first recommendation was very clear: "Magdalen women should have access to the full range of services currently enjoyed by holders of the Health (Amendment) Act 1996 Card (“the HAA card”)." There was a very good reason for him to make that recommendation in a situation where the average age of the survivors is 70, where 66% of the survivors have serious health problems and where an estimated 91% of the women currently have a medical card or general practitioner, GP, card. Therefore, they already have that level of access rights. That is why Mr. Justice Quirke recommended it: in a situation in which people have gone through great trauma which cannot be undone, no matter what is provided, surely the very least that could have been done was to give them what they need and what they believe is appropriate for them.

In this discussion, there has been an implication that the services that are not offered under the version of an enhanced medical card included in the Bill consist of alternative therapies such as angel healing. This is to try to diminish what has been left out. However, legally speaking, the difference between what is being offered and what was recommended by Mr. Justice Quirke, which I believe would be appropriate, is very significant. These are services that the women need in order to be able to deal with all the problems they face as a result - let us not forget - of actions by this State and by the church supported by the State. They include private GP services, a list of prescribed drugs and a range of complementary therapies. As Deputy Coppinger said earlier, they are services such as massage, reflexology, acupuncture, counselling and dental care. It includes a list of services that the women need. The Government can say "Don't worry; we will take care of that," but it will be in the hands of the HSE. It must be given a legislative basis through amendments to this Bill to ensure that these services are prescribed in law - that they have a right to them. It is not just a moral obligation. There is arguably an international human rights legal obligation under the UN Convention against Torture, which requires that people who have been tortured have a right to redress and benefit from as full a rehabilitation as possible. That means being able to access all the services they believe are necessary. If the Government is not willing to give a legislative basis to this and ensure that this minimal recommendation in the report is carried out, it is a new shame on the nation. What indication would that give to everybody who has gone through these circumstances, and society as a whole, if the Taoiseach's promises are broken by not implementing those minimal recommendations?

The point raised by Deputy Boyd Barrett about direct provision centres is a fair one in terms of the similarities that exist and the fact that there is ongoing national shame, and the message sent on this issue is also sent on others, including those in direct provision.

I hope the Government will feel the pressure on this issue and will be open to agreeing an appropriate amendment to include the first recommendation of the Quirke report.

I call on the Minister of State to reply. The order of the House is that we adjourn this matter at 2.30 p.m., if not previously. The Minister of State is aware of that, and if he wants us to put the question on Second Stage before 2.30 p.m., it is up to him.

On behalf of the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, who is unavoidably committed to ministerial obligations in Riga, I thank the Deputies for their comments on the Bill. I remind the House of the commitment given by the Taoiseach to the Magdalen women in this House in February 2013.

On that day the Taoiseach apologised on behalf of the State, the Government and our citizens to all those women for the hurt that was done to them and for any stigma they suffered as a result of the time they spent in Magdalen laundries. The Taoiseach informed this House that the Government had agreed to appoint Mr. Justice Quirke to make recommendations as to the criteria that should be applied in assessing the help that the Government can provide in the areas of payments and other supports, including medical cards, psychological and counselling services and other welfare needs. The purpose of this Bill is to implement the recommendations of Mr. Justice Quirke in regard to the medical card and health service provisions for these women.

If Deputies compare the wording of the Bill and the wording of Mr. Justice Quirke's recommendations, they will find that this Bill provides fully and comprehensively for the health services recommended by Mr. Justice Quirke. These include general practitioner, medical and surgical services; drugs, medicines and surgical appliances; nursing services; home help services; dental, ophthalmic and aural services; counselling services; chiropody services; and physiotherapy services. As was stated yesterday by the Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald, some NGOs have issued quite incorrect statements that the Bill does not provide for these services. As she stated, the only service not included in the Bill relates to alternative therapies with no proven medical benefits.

The Bill also provides these women with exemption from charges for acute inpatient services, as recommended by Mr. Justice Quirke. Furthermore, the Bill provides that payments made to these women arising from the scheme of ex gratia payments will not be included in any financial assessment of means under the Nursing Homes Support Scheme Act 2009. Again, this is fully in accordance with the recommendations of Mr. Justice Quirke.

A number of issues were raised. The first refers to top-up pension-type payments. Mr. Justice Quirke's recommendation on that is being fully implemented. He did not, as has been suggested, recommend that these payments be backdated to the women's 65th birthday. This recommendation proposes that eligible women should, in addition and without regard to lump sum payments, receive weekly payments of €100 if aged under 66 years and the equivalent of the State contributory pension, €230.30, that is, if aged over 66 years for the remainder of their lives. These payments are to be calculated net of other State benefits. The Department of Social Protection has set up a separate scheme to facilitate the recommendation with regard to the top-up pension-type payments. It is continuing to process payments on a phased basis.

The Government decided that the commencement date for the scheme was 1 August 2013. Therefore, regardless of when an applicant makes an application, if eligible for the scheme, she will have appropriate payments backdated to 1 August 2013.

A question was asked about women who do not have capacity to act on their own behalf. They are already covered by section 21 of the Nursing Home Support Scheme Act 2009, which deals with the appointment of a care representative. Mr. Justice Quirke recommended provision for a mechanism whereby a person can be appointed to act in the best interests of a woman who lacks capacity and who receives an ex gratia payment under the scheme. This is being done through the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill currently awaiting Committee Stage in the Dáil. This Government is fully implementing the recommendations of Mr. Justice Quirke and there should be no question or doubt about that fact.

I agree with some of the sentiments expressed across the House about the nature of Irish society in the past and, as I described, our love affair with institutionalising people in mental institutions, mother and baby homes, Magdalen laundries or industrial schools. The Department of Justice and Equality and the Reception and Integration Agency do not like the comparison with direct provision centres, but in many respects it is apt. We should not live in a country with high walls where people wonder what goes on behind them, and continue that type of institutionalisation in this country. While we will do what we will do, in terms of implementing the recommendations in the report of Mr. Justice Quirke, we have to learn lessons from what happened in the past.

Direct provision has been mentioned as a comparison, but it is the value system that we have that underpins our democracy, Republic and legislation that has to teach all of us in the House and Irish society the lessons of the Magdalen laundries. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn