Check against delivery

Before the debate on this motion began last night, Deputy Collins issued a statement that said that 'This motion gives all members of the Dáil the opportunity to put politics aside'.

Deputy Collins, and his party, knew well that there was to be a full debate in this House on the Report within two weeks of its publication.  So why, rather than wait another week while the Report could be fully considered and the views of those affected by it sought, did Fianna Fáil choose instead, to seek to have the matter debated in Private Members' Business this week.  To give this House an opportunity to put politics aside?

Is anyone seriously expected to believe that? Instead this is a shameful attempt to make political capital from a Report dealing with the hurt felt by many women during and as a result of the time they spent in a Magdalen Laundry .

Deputy Collins also said that the motion gives all Members of this House an opportunity to 'unite in our response to the suffering of these women'.  I do not question the personal compassion of any Member of this House for the plight of the women affected.  But it is reasonable to ask where was the concern, where was the compassion, where was the quest for truth in the 14 long years when the party opposite were in Government and during which time they chose to take no action to deal properly with this serious and important issue ?  Now we are to take at face value their concern that two weeks is too long to devise a considered response to this Report; that the Government should not even take the time to listen to the response of those who were admitted to and who worked in Magdalen Laundries to the findings of the Report.

This breathtaking level of opportunism, cynicism and hypocrisy, even by the standards of Fianna Fáil, is not confined to them.  Sinn Féin also supports the motion.  They also seem to think that two weeks is too long a period to take in order to respond fully to this Report.  Yet it took nearly 17 years after Detective Garda Jerry McCabe was murdered, and only after another Detective Garda suffered the same dreadful fate, before Sinn Féin saw fit to apologise in this House. Then Deputy O'Caoiláin in the debate last night, without any apparent sense of irony, accused others of 'mean-spirited and defensive utterances'. I think I will be forgiven for not taking lessons from Sinn Féin in how to properly respond to people who have been caused pain and hurt.

In relation to the two weeks which will have elapsed between the publication of Senator McAleese’s Report and the Government’s substantive response, I would draw the attention of the House, and in particular the attention of the Members opposite, to the fact that it was always the Government’s stated intention that the Report would be considered by Government following it’s publication and that it would be responded to thereafter.  On 13th March 2012 in response to a Priority Question tabled by Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan in relation to the Magdalen Laundries I stated "The report of the interdepartmental committee will provide us with the additional information we need. It will be published, considered by Government and appropriate decisions will be made arising out of it."
In fairness, Deputy O'Cuiv, in stark contrast to the base opportunism of the timing of this Motion, had the decency to acknowledge, in his contribution, that the Government needed time to produce a detailed response and that he would be happy if An Taoiseach comes to the House next week with a considered response.

I can assure the House that the Government will not be distracted from responding fully and properly to the McAleese report by the distraction of this ill-timed debate.

I was not surprised by the conclusion of Dr McAleese's Report that there was significant State involvement in relation to the Magdalen Laundries.  I had maintained this publicly long before my appointment as Justice Minister.

So when Members opposite expressed regrets last night for not having done enough in Government - which is a euphemism for not having done anything - it was not for the want of myself and others pointing out on countless occasions that there were issues which needed to be addressed.

I was glad that a short time after my appointment, together with Minister Kathleen Lynch, I met with some of the women who were residents in the Magdalen Laundries and also with the religious congregations, to facilitate our getting a full comprehensive narrative of the years of the Laundries.  I am glad that we were in a position to set aside years of neglect in relation to this issue by asking former Senator McAleese to chair a group to examine exactly what that level of State involvement was.  We now have, for the first time, clear answers.

I would like, in the first instance, to thank and commend the courage of the women who told their stories of their experiences in a Magdalen Laundry. 

I would also like to thank Dr McAleese for his work.  I am personally very grateful for the calm compassion with which he approached his task and cast a light into an area where darkness was allowed linger for far too long. 

We owe it to the women who were admitted to and worked in the Magdalen Laundries to try to understand as fully as we can everything there is to know about the operation of the Laundries.  And Dr McAleese's Report is fundamental to that understanding. 

Dr McAleese points out in his introduction to the Report that 'there is no single or simple story of the Magdalen Laundries'.  And those who have read the report will well understand the truth of that and why it is said at the very start of the Report..

Because, beyond the immediate issues which Government is addressing, the Report raises fundamental questions about how our society lived over the decades.  I am conscious that any society rejects much of what was done by previous generations and of the dangers of judging by today's standards the behaviour of our predecessors.  But I think we are still entitled to be shocked that some foster parents left children in the Laundries when their foster payments stopped and that a significant number of people went into the Laundries of their own volition, presumably because they felt that life would be better for them there than it was on the outside.  And the bleak reality is that that may very well have been so.  The Report points out too that many girls and women were placed in the Laundries by their families for reasons that we may never know or fully understand. Then there were the referrals by or on behalf of the State that the Report outlines.

So what obligations do we, as a people, now have for what went on in some areas of Irish life since the foundation of this State and how do we fulfil those obligations?  That is the key question which we are trying to address.  The women who were admitted to and worked in the Laundries deserve the best supports that the State can provide but it would be to mislead this House to suggest, in the light of the complexities outlined in the report, that there is an instant, simple, complete answer to that question.   What I can say is that we are determined to resolve all these issues in a fair and compassionate way, having listened to some of the women concerned, and that is a matter which will be returned to in next week's debate.

A  huge concern for many of the women has been the unfair stigmatising labels that were often attached to those who were in the Magdalen Laundries.  That cruel myth has been laid to rest beyond doubt by this Report. 

The Report represents the most authoritative account we have of the Laundries and it acknowledges in detail for the first time the level of State involvement. It acknowledges the reality of the lives that the women who were admitted to and worked in the Laundries had to lead. 

Moreover, it gave people who had experience of the Laundries an opportunity to give their first-hand testimony.

The Report mentions that in some cases young girls were not told why they were being admitted to the Laundries, how long they had to stay there or when they could leave.  Some indeed feared they were to be incarcerated there for the rest of their lives.  Added to that unthinkable uncertainty, over the years they, like the many others who were admitted to the laundries, lived in the shadow of not knowing when, or indeed if, their stories would be told. 

Their stories have been told now.

Having got to this point, we are determined to play our part to try to bring about healing and reconciliation and possibly even  help bring some closure on what they endured.

That is why I recommend the counter-motion to the House.

ENDS