Is it possible to bring forward the debate on the report on the Magdalen laundries? The timing of its release has not been helpful. It was released after a Cabinet meeting that the Attorney General attended. It was quite evident that the latter put constraints on the Taoiseach. The victims, the survivors, must have been absolutely stunned by the tone of the Taoiseach's comments in the Dáil. We know he is a compassionate man, as has been said, but it might have been better if the Government had considered the 1,000 page document and then entered debate straightaway. Further injury is being inflicted on the survivors. To realise this, we have only to recall some of yesterday's television programmes, in which one could see what I describe in the faces of some of the survivors. They would have received a briefing in advance and been expecting a full response from the Government, but it did not come. Consequently, they were absolutely shattered by what they were hearing and seeing. It is a very complex issue. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, put his finger on it this morning on radio when he said this was not the stuff of films but the stuff of individuals suffering, not only the survivors but also the families of people who had already died, including former inmates of the Magdalen laundries. We are talking about an apology which I still believe could be forthcoming today. The legalese is not necessary; that can follow subsequently when talking about recompense for the affected individuals who suffered so much.

In the hiatus in the next two weeks all kinds of emotional elements will come to the fore. Yet again, the victims and sufferers will be the survivors, which nobody genuinely wants. Incidentally, we owe a debt of gratitude to the Government, as it brought forward the report which it produced after a very short time in office and deserves credit for having done so. If we do nothing in the next 24 or 48 hours, we will do further damage. I refer not only to the 100-plus individuals who came forward but to the hundreds who have not come forward at all, as is their entitlement. They are suffering privately and, to all intents and purposes, have tried to black out a portion of their innocent lives. If we want to give due recognition to the wonderful work done by former Senator Martin McAleese and his team, we should not do so in two weeks but immediately.

I join Senator John Whelan in calling for a full apology. Everybody in the State, including the Taoiseach, is of the opinion that the women in question and their families suffered for a long time. On reflection, an apology will be forthcoming. It has to be made because the period of our history in question must be acknowledged. I credit the Government for producing the report and former Senator Martin McAleese for presenting it yesterday. I fully support the sentiments of all Deputies and Senators on the issue.

I ask that the Minister for Health come to the House to explain the budgetary increases and decreases announced on Monday. Letterkenny General Hospital has been subject to an increase of 7%, owing to efficiencies and the hard work of staff and management. It is a credit to them. I caution the Opposition which was very quick off the mark to criticise the Minister for the announcement concerning Mr. Tony O'Brien from the HSE. I ask the Minister to explain the procedure to the Opposition. Mr. O'Brien, CEO of the HSE, explained it very well on "Six One News" on Monday evening. He stated categorically that no representations had been made to him by any Minister or politician on the budgets. This is the way forward. With respect to Fianna Fáil, it probably would have expected the Minister to have had a serious influence when it was in power, but Mr. O'Brien knocked that thinking on the head. The Minister should explain the procedure to us.

He got the job without an interview and public consultation. He was the Minister's friend.

Members of this and the other House have raised issues concerning the recently issued report on the Magdalen laundries. I ask the Leader to try to obtain for me the answer to some very specific questions.

I am interested in the financial investigation into the various organisations and the laundries. I refer, in particular, to the evidence to support the assertion that the laundries were run at subsistence level, for a small profit or, in some cases, at a loss. From first principles, it does not seem credible that organisations which had State-funded contracts with other organisations that they owned were not actually generating a profit. Many of the religious orders which ran the laundries also ran the hospitals and had the gift of the contracts for laundry services for hospitals and other institutions, using taxpayers money and at the same time employing staff who were effectively working for free. It is possible that there were non-profit-generating work practices and that the overall ethos of the institutions was such that they were not trying to generate a profit, but, in the light of the fact that the work practices and contractual arrangements were so unusual, there is a need for a detailed forensic analysis of the financial statements included in the report. We do not get this in the report. If I am not misreading it, the only accountancy input comprises reports from the paid accountants who worked for the religious orders which were being investigated. We all know that accountants have an attorney-client relationship. They act for the client, not for any disinterested third party. Asking them to provide the detailed financial analysis of the state of the laundries' finances is inadequate. Clarification is, therefore, required.

I am very troubled by the composition of the committee, the members of which were drawn entirely from the Civil Service. The committee's remit was to investigate the involvement of the State in a matter reported at a level as high as the United Nations. It is a matter that caused the State to suffer a substantial reputational hit.

Does the Senator have a question for the Leader?

Will the Leader seek clarification from the Minister for Justice and Equality on the procedure involved in choosing the members of the committee?

Was there any expert accounting forensic analysis available to the committee or did it simply accept what the orders' accountants gave them at face value?

I wish to be associated with remarks on the McAleese report which, of all things, will be an indictment of the history of this nation. When people read the McAleese report in 100 years time, they will say there were problems in regard to the Church and the State. I hope this report gives some comfort to the survivors. Whether it involved one person or 6 million people, this will go down in the same way as the way Negroes were treated and enslaved and the way the Holocaust developed and the Jews were persecuted. This was the persecution of people who were in a vulnerable state in our country. I would welcome a debate on the matter and I will leave it up to the Leader as to when we have it. The report runs to 1,000 pages and it will take us a while to read through it and make sure we take it all in.

I refer to a statement made last week in the other House by the Sinn Féin deputy leader that there is a difference between the murder of a PSNI or RUC man and a garda. Is this Sinn Féin policy?

Do you have a question for the Leader?

Will the Leader ask the Sinn Féin Members if they will clarify their positions in regard to this matter?

The McAleese report released yesterday vindicates what the Magdalen women have been saying for a decade that the State was complicit in their detention, in their routes of entry into the laundries and in the direct State funding of the laundries. Nowhere was that more relevant and true than in the laundry in my home city of Waterford. If the Leader has read the report, he will see in the context of referrals from the courts and when women were sent to these laundries through the courts system, that the report makes particular note of this high practice in Waterford.

This whole episode is a blot on the history of this State and that is why many people were deeply disappointed with the Taoiseach's response yesterday. They were looking for the Taoiseach of this country to apologise, on behalf of the people of this State, to the women who suffered in these laundries. I accept fully the women's testimony when they say they were kept in these places against their will and that they were forced to work for nothing - a form of slave labour - that they were mistreated and that they were victims of physical and emotional abuse. All of those survivors and their families deserve an unequivocal apology by the Taoiseach of this State for what happened. He cannot say this was wrong and condemn what happened but not apologise on behalf of the State. I take the opportunity to appeal to the Leader to appeal to the Taoiseach to make that apology to the survivors and the victims, many of whom live in the Leader's home city of Waterford.

I wish to be associated with the comments made on the Magdalen laundries and confirm to the House that the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, when asked by Ray D'Arcy on radio in the past hour whether there would be an apology said she believed there would be.

Why would she not say it in the House rather than on Ray D'Arcy's programme on Today FM?

Senator Landy, without interruption.

In regard to the comments made by the Senator on the other side of the House-----

Have you a question for the Leader?

I am entitled to answer somebody when-----

Do you have a question?

In regard to what was said by the Senator on other side of the House, he asked a question and is getting the answer but he is not satisfied.

The Leader will respond. Do you have a question for the Leader?

If the Cathaoirleach keeps stopping me, I will not have a question. I will sit down altogether because he will not allow me to speak.

In many ways, it is ironic that it is not long since the children's referendum which placed a constitutional obligation on the State to protect children. When the State or a person fails in its or his or her duty, it or he or she should apologise. When the Minister for Justice and Equality was in opposition, he described the State as being directly responsible for barbaric cruelty yet in a position of responsibility in government, he rode back from all he had said. The Taoiseach rightly rebuked the Vatican when it failed the children of this country by refusing to fully participate in tribunals of inquiry and investigations into what the Church had done. However, when the State, for which he is responsible, is found to have been responsible for incarcerating women in the most cruel of circumstances, described by his Minister for Justice and Equality in opposition as barbaric, the Taoiseach is not able to apologise fully.

Have you a question for the Leader?

Will the Leader arrange a debate?

It is ironic that today we will issue an apology to those who deserted the Irish Army to join the British Army. Their treatment was cruel and unusual and we are giving them an apology. Is it not ironic that we are giving an apology to people who deserted the Irish Army yet women who did nothing wrong but who were treated so cruelly by the Irish State are not afforded an apology by the Taoiseach? I find that ironic and appalling. Will the Leader organise a debate as soon as possible on the lack of an apology to those who were sent to the Magdalen laundries? The State failed these women and, at the very least, they deserve an apology.

Former Senator McAleese has done the State some service. His report records a blight on our social history - on the Ireland which we have come from. It showed that more than 10,000 women were committed to the Magdalen laundries, one of which was in Galway from where I come. More than one quarter of these women were referrals made by the State. What is significant about this report is that all of these victims were women and children. It is clear they are still hurting and suffering. We know that an apology goes an awfully long way towards healing and they deserve it and should get it. Will the Government seriously reflect on giving them that apology so they can get peace of mind and heal? Will the Leader arrange a full debate and seek clarity from the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Burton, on the entitlements these women currently receive from the State? These Irish women were in servitude to this State. That is not something of which we should be proud and they deserve an apology.