Jun

29

MINISTER COUGHLAN’S RESPONSE TO A REQUEST FOR A POLL ON TRUST FUND

Filed Under GOVERNMENT MINISTER - STATUTORY FUND | 72 Comments

Thank you for your recent email in relation to the proposed establishment of a Statutory Fund to meet the needs of survivors going forward.
I wish to advise you that, in the period following the publication of the Ryan Report, a motion was passed in the Dail on the 28th May 2009 calling on the congregations to commit to making further substantial contributions by way of reparation, in the context of discussions with the State, including to a Fund to be set up and managed by the State for the support of victims and to other education and welfare purposes. In addition to the original €128m contribution under the 2002 Indemnity Agreement, the Congregations are now offering significant additional contributions, which they have valued at €348.51m.
The Government announced its proposal to utilise the cash element of the Congregations’ current offers of contributions, which will amount to some €110m over the next few years, to establish a Statutory Fund, in keeping with the all party Motion passed by Dáil Éireann, supporting the proposal for a Trust for the support of victims and to other education and welfare purposes. Following consultation with the Congregations and the former residents as to the exact nature of the fund, how it will operate and the uses to which it will be put, the arrangements for the Statutory Fund will be considered by the Government. This Fund, which will be to support the needs of survivors, is separate and distinct from the compensation scheme operated by the independent Residential Institutions Redress Board, which provides fair and reasonable awards to victims of institutional childhood abuse. In a statement issue on 15th April last, the Government indicated that it was satisfied that the arrangements put in place have benefited survivors and it does not propose to revise the arrangements.
In terms of seeking the views of all former residents, particularly those not affiliated to any group, I can tell you that, owing to the confidential nature of the information supplied to the Residential Institutions Redress Board, the Government does not have access to the names or contact details of individuals who may have applied to the Board. However, the Government considers it appropriate to attempt to seek the views of all those wishing to contribute to this process and is currently considering how to put in place an appropriate mechanism by which the views of individuals can be conveyed.
I hope this information is of assistance to you.
Kind regards
Yours sincerely
Mary Coughlan TD
Tánaiste & Minister for Education & Skills

Jun

29

Vatican can be sued over abuse — US supreme court

Filed Under News | 7 Comments

Judges reject immunity plea in Irish priest case

By John Cooney

AMERICA’s highest court has cleared the way for a lawsuit against Pope Benedict by refusing to entertain Vatican immunity in a case involving an Irish priest.

The Government is studying the landmark decision by the US Supreme Court, which could have major implications for Ireland’s relations with the Vatican in the cover-up of paedophile clerics.

In Washington, the supreme court refused to consider whether the Vatican enjoyed legal immunity over the sexual abuse of minors by priests in the US, thereby allowing a lawsuit filed in 2002 to proceed.

This decision could set a precedent for Irish courts to give the go-ahead to hear claims against priests ordained in Ireland but who served in the US.

Until now, the Government and Irish courts have dismissed clerical child abuse claims on the grounds that the Holy See is an independent state with diplomatic immunity recognised by Ireland.

Previous attempts to make the Papal Nuncio in Dublin appear in the High Court to answer charges of collusion with paedophile cleric Sean Fortune in the scandal-hit diocese of Ferns were declared inadmissible.

This special status of the Vatican caused uproar last year when the Murphy Report into the cover-ups in the archdiocese of Dublin complained bitterly that neither the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, nor the Papal Nuncio in Dublin, answered its queries for files.

The Washington decision could also give impetus to a case being taken by Patrick Wall, a senior attorney with Manly & Stewart, Newport Beach, California, who is suing notorious Tipperary-ordained cleric, Fr Oliver O’Grady.

Mr Wall is also suing the Archbishop of Thurles, Dr Dermot Clifford, claiming the archdioceses ordained O’Grady while knowing he was a paedophile.

The lawsuit in Washington yesterday was filed by a plaintiff identified only as ‘John Doe’, claiming he was sexually abused on several occasions in the mid-1960s when he was 15 or 16 by an Irish Catholic priest named Father Andrew Ronan.

Transfer

According to court documents, Fr Ronan molested boys in the mid-1950s as a priest in Ireland and later in Chicago before his transfer to a church in Portland, Oregon, where he allegedly abused the victim who filed the lawsuit. Fr Ronan died in 1992.

The suit claims there was an international conspiracy on the part of church leaders to move Fr Ronan from Ireland after he allegedly sexually abused a boy while he was working at a seminary in Benburb, Co Tyrone, which is Cardinal Sean Brady’s archdiocese of Armagh.

The victim’s Minnesota based lawyer, Michael Finnegan, described the Supreme Court decision as “absolutely huge” and said he was very confident that his firm, Anderson Advocates, would be able to prove the case in court.

- John Cooney

Irish Independent 29th June 2010

Jun

25

Justice group demands laundries inquiry

Filed Under Human Rights | 8 Comments

Justice group demands laundries inquiry

By Claire O’Sullivan

Thursday, June 24, 2010

THE JUSTICE for Magdalenes group (JFM) has asked the Irish Human Rights Commission to conduct an inquiry into the state’s refusal to acknowledge their role in the laundries.

Representatives from the JFM group met with the IHRC and with Amnesty International chief executive Colm O’Gorman in Dublin yesterday.

The IHRC has agreed to examine the arguments put forward by JFM before deciding whether to conduct an inquiry. JFM is seeking the inquiry under Article 13 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which provides a right to remedy if rights and freedoms are violated.

The advocacy group for survivors of the Magdalene laundries has long argued that even though the laundries were run as private institutions, this does not “absolve the state of responsibility to protect the women and girls from abuse endured”.

They also argue the state “knew the nature and function of the Magdalene laundries” and that it had a “duty to protect all the women and girls in the laundries”.

Senior board members of JFM said they had no choice but to approach the IHRC as the Government has repeatedly refused to take any responsibility for what happened in these institutions. This is despite JFM finding documentation proving the courts service and probation officers sent women to these homes while the Department of Education knew that children were housed there and were not attending school. The Department of Health was also paying capitation grants for “problem girls” sent to such laundries.

A spokesman last night said “the state had a constitutional duty to educate all children and to care for children in cases of parental failure” yet the abuse that these women and children suffered “amounted to slavery and forced labour”.

JFM is seeking an apology from the state for the abuse that occurred at the Magdalene laundries and also a distinct redress scheme.

A petition containing 1,000 signatures was handed in to the Department of the Taoiseach earlier this week.

Fianna Fáil TDs Tom Kitt and Michael Kennedy delivered to Taoiseach Brian Cowen the first signatures from an online petition demanding a state apology and a distinct redress scheme for survivors of the Magdalene laundries.

Signatories to the petition include people of more than 40 nationalities. Many have also posted comments expressing outrage at the Government’s failure to correct a historic injustice.

It is now nearly one year since the JFM campaign began. The group has met with representatives from the departments of Education, Justice and Health.

JFM advisory committee member Professor James M Smith last night reminded Mr Cowen that this is a “time sensitive issue”.

“Many survivors in this community are elderly; some are nearing the end of their lives. They deserve a form of restorative justice. An apology would mean a lot to this community of survivors,” he said.

This story appeared in the printed version of the Irish Examiner Thursday, June 24, 2010

Jun

24

Abuse: Minutes of meeting with Taoiseach 15/04/2010

Filed Under Abuse. Minutes of meeting with Taoiseach | 41 Comments

Follow-Up to Ryan Report

Meeting with Representatives of Survivor Groups/Former Residents.
15 April 2010

1. The Taoiseach, accompanied by the Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills, the Ministers for Health and Children and Justice and Equality and Law Reform, the Minister of State for Children and Youth Affairs and senior Departmental officials, met 19 representatives from 10 organisations representing survivor/former residents at Government Buildings on 15 April 2010. A list of the representatives and their organisations is attached. The meeting lasted approximately from 5.45pm to 9.15 pm.

2. In his opening remarks the Taoiseach thanked the organisations’ representatives for accepting his invitation to the meeting and went on to make the following points.

· Since the then Taoiseach’s apology in May 1999 the State has put a range of measures in place in response to child abuse in residential institutes. The Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse was established to establish a comprehensive view of the causes, nature and extent of abuse and to report on its findings and recommendations. An independent Redress Scheme was established to provide fair and reasonable awards to victims of childhood abuse. A National Counselling Service was set up to help victims cope with their experiences, together with a family tracing service to assist former residents trace their families of origin. Educational services were provided for former residents and their families, and funding was provided for support groups. These responses had been comprehensive, compassionate and as user-friendly as possible. The taxpayer has met, and continues to meet, almost all of the costs involved.

· The publication of the Ryan Report meant that for the first time an independent Commission had undertaken a detailed examination of the residential institutions and identified the failures of all involved, including the State.

· The Ryan Report had set out a series of recommendations and the Government had published a detailed Implementation Plan last summer to implement them.

· The Ryan Report had vindicated the Government’s decision to establish the Residential Institutions Redress Board to compensate survivors without their having to go through the Courts. Being an ex-gratia scheme, involving no finding of fault or declaration of liability, the Redress Scheme requires a much lower burden of proof than would have been required in Court.

· The Redress Board had commenced making awards in May 2003. Wholly independent in the performance of its functions, over the last seven years it has dealt with over 13,800 cases, resulting in over 13,000 awards being accepted by applicants. It has some 800 applications to process and continues to accept late applications in exceptional circumstances. It is expected that the Board will complete its work within the next year or so.

· The Government has considered a range of demands for the Redress Scheme to be extended and for awards made to be reviewed. However, it is not possible for the Government to second-guess the independent Board and associated appeals process to the Review Committee. There is provision for late applications and the Board continues to process such requests. The Government is satisfied that the arrangements put in place have benefited survivors and does not propose to revise the arrangements.

· The final cost of the response to residential institutional abuse is estimated to reach €1.36 billion. While the main cost is from the Redress Scheme, others include the cost of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse and the Education Finance Board.

·

The Government and Dáil Éireann last year called on the Religious Congregations to make further substantial contributions by way of reparation. The Government envisaged this contribution being available not just for public purposes but as a priority for funding necessary services to victims, including some form of independent trust or fund which would be available to support education and welfare purposes. To facilitate public assessment of the Congregations’ contributions in the context of their resources, the Government had appointed an Independent Panel to assess the statements of resources to be provided by the Congregations.

· The Panel’s Report was received in late November and shortly afterwards a full set of responses from the Congregations was received. The Panel concluded that the statements of resources provided by the Congregations give a complete and reasonable view of their overall financial situation, and that the assets, liabilities and commitments are fairly stated.

· The Panel’s Report and the responses of the Congregations would be published by the Government after today’s meeting and copies were available for everyone present.

· The offers of contributions from the Congregations, taken together, were valued by the Congregations at €348.5 million, of which some €110 million is cash to be provided over a number of years. The balance consists of €235.5 million in property and €2 million by way of rent waiver on a property.

· This was a very significant amount. However, some of the offers involve complex property proposals which will require detailed discussions with the Congregations to enable the State to adopt a definitive position in relation to them.

·

The Government intends that the €110 million cash element of the offers will be used to establish a Statutory Fund to support the needs of survivors for general education and welfare purposes as envisaged in the motion adopted by Dáil Éireann last June. The exact nature of the Fund, how it would operate and the uses to which it might be put will be addressed in consultation both with the victims’ representatives and with the Congregations. Following this consultation, the arrangements will be considered by the Government. Legislation will be needed to establish the Fund.

· In the light of the stark findings of the Ryan Report, the overall costs being incurred in the response to residential institutional abuse and the resources available to the Congregations as outlined in the resource summaries in the Panel Report, the Government considers that the ultimate outcome should be that the State and the Congregations would share the final costs on a 50:50 basis.

· While the Government acknowledge that the bulk of the Congregations’ assets are property that is in use for social services or residences, or where use is restricted in some other way, the Government believe that a 50:50 contribution from the Congregations, while challenging, would be fair, reasonable and achievable over time. The Government had met the Congregations earlier today and had proposed to them that they engage in a process to establish how, over time, that outcome can be achieved. The Government intends that any cash received in the additional contribution to reach a 50% share of the overall costs, will be used as a contribution to the planned National Children’s Hospital.

3. The Taoiseach then invited each group represented to respond.

4. Tom Hayes, Alliance, said there was a lack of accountability and transparency from Government and Government Agencies such as the Redress Unit. Because of these issues, Members of Alliance could not support a Fund run by the Government. The issues were:

- Some survivor groups were overfunded, had salaried staff, etc.

- no answers had been received as to the audited accounts of the ad-hoc Education Fund from 1997.

- no action had been taken as a result of the Report into the Outreach Services in England, which says that many survivors will not use these Centres because of their religious connections.

- no action had been taken vis-à-vis Right of Place in Cork or the Aislinn Centre in Dublin to regulate their funding. The Alliance wanted an investigation into the activities of Right of Place in Cork and the HSE’s handling of what is going on there.

- Funding to groups had been a contentious issue and one that must be addressed now. The Alliance “expenses” amount from the Department of Education and Science for 2010 amounts to only €6,000, which was simply not sufficient, despite the fact that the Committee had complied as far as it could with all requests from the Redress Unit. Alliance Accounts continue to be audited annually with copies sent to the Department of Education and Science and the Redress Unit. Expenses are always based on the previous year’s activities, as are this year’s requests.
- The Department of Education and Science only funded individuals who were willing to support Department policies, and while it gave the impression that it was engaging with other survivor groups, it never took their concerns on board. Also, it consistently used funded individuals to create the public perception that those individuals spoke on behalf of the majority of survivors.

- Alliance had always recognised that there would be no more money for Redress. If there was to be a Fund, it was not education and counselling services that were needed now: victims’ needs had changed.

John Kelly, Irish SOCA said he was deeply disappointed that prosecutions of individuals guilty of abuse in institutions had not happened. Irish SOCA was very concerned re the protection of the children of today and improving their lot. He considered ABA schools for autistic children should be helped, and mentioned his own child, who requires help with daily needs. He doubted whether the State would in fact obtain a 50:50 contribution from the religious Congregations. He also questioned how the State would manage to liquidate the school playing fields offered by the Christian Brothers and indeed the properties offered generally, and suggested that the Congregations be invited into a buy-back scheme for the properties, an idea about which he said he had spoken to the bishops.

As regards the Department of Education and Science, it had tried to limit each group to two representatives at today’s meeting but had then invited several extra groups, including two politicians – one a UK Labour party Councillor – and a salaried person. The Department would not give Irish SOCA a penny in funding. Later during the meeting, Mr Kelly said that he had no confidence in the Redress Unit of the Department. The Taoiseach rejected this view of the Unit.

Marie Seo, also Irish SOCA, said that the consensus at Irish SOCA meetings had been against a Fund and that the Government should give the victims the money and let them look after themselves. She said that discussions on the proposed memorial should be stopped until the contributions from the religious congregations are sorted out and that they wanted the State to consult with the church regarding redress for the Magdalene women. Cardinal Brady was very supportive of the women that were placed in the laundries. She wanted to know how soon the discussions about the Fund would start.

Gerard Lyons and Sean Leonard, Justice and Healing for Institutional Abuse said their Group questioned why the State was defending defenders in abuse trials and criticised the redress process. They felt that the State had taken advantage of people and shafted the victims. Also, there is no 50/50 contribution split as the State was 100% negligent and the religious congregations were 100% guilty of abusing them. They wanted no Fund and the playing fields being offered by the religious congregations had already been paid for by the local communities. The apology rang hollow, there is nothing for them in the present offer and the State did not and does not care. They had not got proper awards and only few people had got awards equivalent to High Court. Finally, it was disingenuous to expect them to read all the documents being released today.

Michael O’Brien, Right to Peace said the Government was afraid to take on the religious and noted that Cardinal Brady had not been approached for a contribution from the bishops. In removing the social welfare Christmas bonus, the Government had removed it from victims. The Government would not put him into a home. He held up the Court document referring to him when he was being put into an institution as a child and said he wanted it corrected. He complained that Redress Board awards had been reduced when appealed and said he would bring taxpayers out to march for victims again as had been done last year. His organisation wanted no Trust Find, and he accused the Government of not caring for the victims and hoping they would die off. He noted that staff are paid out of the Education Fund. He also criticised the payment of money to groups. He wanted the bishops, religious, the government and victims’ representatives all brought together. He said there were victims dying in the streets in the UK and that victims are the most vulnerable people in the country.

Mr O’Brien ended by saying that he had shortly to go into hospital for a heart operation and this plus his recovery would take some three weeks, but after that he would go on hunger strike for victims’ rights. He then walked out of the meeting.

Christopher Heaphey, also of Right to Peace, said that the Government, the Church and the Religious Orders were all equally culpable for the crimes committed against victims. On top of this, the Government had entered into an indemnity deal with the Congregations for €128 million, or some €8,500 per victim. The deal was grotesquely wrong. The survivors had never been consulted about it. To add insult to injury, it was decided that €12.7 million would go to educate victims, but only 23% of survivors avail of the Education Fund. A further €10 million was set aside to give victims counselling but survivors did not want the Congregations to pay for their counselling. It was unclear where the balance of the €128 million had gone.

Also, the Redress Scheme had included, without victims’ understanding or consent, a waiver that gave the Congregations a get-out clause for the crimes they had committed. Unless victims signed that waiver, they got no redress. Few survivors who signed it understand or understood its implications.

The Government should take the necessary money from the Congregations and give it to the victims, €60,000 each.

Tom Cronin, Irish Survivors of Institutional Abuse, noted that the victims’ groups would have no say re the property in the congregations’ offers, and so were left with the €110m cash offer. After last year’s meeting, there had been a terrible backlash from survivors, who argued that the representatives had had no standing to do a deal for 15,000 people, so the present offer was not going to be helpful. Very few people had got big awards from the Redress Board and many were in the 0- €50,000 bracket.
He felt that the Education Finance Board was too restrictive and should be broadened.
Finally, he wanted to know whether the money in the proposed Fund was for successful applicants, their spouses, children etc, and how the criteria would be met.

Paul Cronin, also Irish Survivors of Institutional Abuse, said it was a pity that they hadn’t got the reports of the assets of the religious congregations in advance of the meeting. He had suggested that the idea of pensions for former residents should be considered but wasn’t disappointed as he had felt the Government’s mind was made up.

Carmel McDonnell Byrne from Aislinn, responding to criticism of groups made by earlier speakers, said that neither she nor Christine Buckley receives a salary. Aislinn’s funding from the State goes on heat, stationery, etc. Aislinn has two paid staff, of whom neither is a survivor. Christine Buckley had got a salary for four years out of twenty-six. She went on to make the following points:

-Aislinn very much welcomed the Fund proposal and the Memorial proposal.

- Aislinn wanted all late applications to the Redress Board to be allowed. Also, the Redress Scheme should be extended to the Magdalene women.

- the Redress Board hearings had been very adversarial and the requirement that a victim must not reveal information about their award was very undesirable.

- solicitors should have been, but had not been, prosecuted for double-charging

-Aislinn wanted to be involved in negotiations with the religious congregations

- despite what had been said earlier, education and counselling services were very important to the people who call to the Aislinn Centre.

Christine Buckley, Aislinn, thanked the Taoiseach and Ministers for listening. She was in total agreement with the Fund proposal. She was glad that the Congregations had been called in to contribute to the cost of redress. She said the Redress Board hearings were very adversarial, to judge from the experiences of the people Aislinn had accompanied to the Board, and she referred to ongoing research into related suicides. There should be a review of the Redress Board, with every case looked at – perhaps by an independent panel, as she knew from MoS Andrews that for legal reasons a review would be very difficult. She considered the proposed Fund a very important step forward. Also, education was very important: thanks to it, in her view, Aislinn had not been in Court with any clients for the past three years and she suggested a Director of Counselling be seconded to help the Education Finance Board. As to counselling, people were waiting for it, and the proposed Trust Fund should help with this. She too felt that the Magdalen women should be covered by redress.

Finally, she said that Aislinn wanted to be able to visit victims in prison but had been refused [Minister Ahern responded that he would have this looked into] and that she supported the idea of a Memorial. A Memorial was not about those who had been in the institutions in the past, as that was over and one with, but it was very important in relation to children who were in care now, and also for abusers to see the memorial in place.

Here the Taoiseach pointed out that the question of Magdalene women was not part of the present discussion, which was about people who had been abused as children in residential institutions, and the position of Magdalene women was no analogous with that. In relation to women who had been in Magdalene laundries, the relevant Departments will help individuals with information where they can, but it was not part of today’s discussion.
Frank Traynor (Right of Place) said the Ryan Report had enabled victims to be known as survivors, and no longer to be embarrassed about their past. Obviously, there was anger and distrust both among groups and with the Government, and it would not be right to dismiss that anger. Survivor groups could benefit from professional liaison group to work with them to figure out what survivors want. He was not a spokesperson for Right of Place but wanted to say that he had no issue with the governance of Right of Place.

Funding for the survivor groups was important: the groups are undervalued and underfunded. A report on the groups, how they are structured, who they represent, so as to give them respect for what they do, would be a good idea.

As regards the proposed Fund, survivor groups need to find out if its the only show in town. It was important that the Government make that clear, because some people think there’s another windfall coming their way. If there is to be no windfall, the Government should clear that up, so that people can focus on victims’ real needs.

Noel Barry, Right of Place said the State couldn’t do everything. His group would like to see the Magdalen women qualify for Redress. Also, the legal profession should be removed from the process. Solicitors deserved their fees but not the barristers, and they should be excluded. As regards the proposed Memorial, its purpose is to remind future generations about Ireland not being an island of Saints and Scholars, and it is very important.

Andrew Brennan, SOCA UK thanked the Government for their efforts. He said he found it hard to separate Magdalenes from the victims’ situation. His mother was in a Magdalen, and his family had then been put into an institution.

Michael Waters, SOCA UK thanked the Taoiseach for his invitation. He wanted to wish Michael O’Brien well. He felt the SOCA Centre in Camden Town did a good job. Returning to 3 June last, he said that there was an expectation of further substantial financial contribution from the religious and that this offer will not be welcomed by many survivors.

He raised the possibility of a ballot among all survivors (using the Redress Board list), to see what they wanted done about the offer, because, he suggested, the people in the room today represented only a small number of survivors.

Quality care for today’s children with disabilities was very important. Three hostels for children recently closed in Dublin, he said, and he couldn’t find what alternative has been put in place. Had any lessons been learnt?

Also, the situation in the UK should be considered: many survivors were living rough etc, and the Redress Board awards had not changed their lives. He instanced the suicide of a person who had been in contact with him. It was crucial to be able to support victims. Money wouldn’t solve the problem.

Phyllis Morgan of the Outreach Centre, London said the Centre always helped all who came through its doors.

Sally Mulready said she was the Local Councillor in London that had been referred to earlier. She had a number of questions:

- the Trust Fund: Would there be an opportunity to contribute on the Legislation? What was the timetable? It would be useful to get down to detail quickly.
- 32%, or some 4800 people, at the Redress Board were from the UK and they should have a voice.
- how would the Fund be administered? Public finance skills would be necessary.

She also said that the Education Finance Board was a good idea – but there was a problem with take-up and greater promotion and advertising were necessary. Also, it would be useful to widen the criteria for it so that group applications can be made. She would consult with UK survivors and revert. Finally, she echoed the point already made re windfalls – tonight’s meeting would put an end to that speculation.

Paddy Doyle said he was not representing any group but felt tremendous sadness at the end of the meeting, for two reasons. First, the real issue was being lost sight of. Money hadn’t so far sorted out much for people and it was time to move away from how much victims were going to get. Rumours that each victim was going to get €300,000 were ridiculous nonsense. To do so would cost well over € 5 billion and it was time those rumours were put a stop to: people were even trying to borrow on the strength of such a windfall. He was also sad at the evident tensions between groups claiming to represent survivors, and reports of those tensions were getting into the media. Groups should come to their senses and stop tearing each other apart. There was a need to work together. He had accepted an invitation to join the Committee about the proposed Memorial and he had also served as a member of the government-appointed Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities.
Services for people who had a disability because of what happened them in care were equally important. As regards the Education Finance Board, he hadn’t bothered to apply to it, because of the form-filling required: instead of requiring forms to be filled up, the EFB should simply check whether the applicant had been before the Redress Board, and if so, entitlement under the EFB would be automatic. Finally, he said, people should stop ringing Department of Education and Science staff dealing with victims and being abusive to them. He also mentioned that he had picketed the current play in the Peacock Theatre because of lack of disabled access.

The Taoiseach had responded at a number of stages during the meeting to points and questions raised by various speakers. At the end he spoke again, at length. Following is a summary of the points he made;

- he had listened to all the contributions, which often differed in approach but were
candid and sincere, and he acknowledged the hurt suffered. For former residents it was clear that supports, avoiding isolation etc through survivor groups was important.

- The Redress Scheme had been an appropriate response by the Government to the situation that had faced victims. Before the Redress Scheme was set up, only a very small proportion of the cases for damages being taken by victims through the Courts system against members of religious congregations were successful. There were important reasons for this, including the length of time that had passed since the alleged abuse occurred and therefore difficulty of gathering evidence, and the Constitutional right of every person to defend their good name. The adversarial nature of the Courts system, especially when someone was being accused of a heinous crime, was also relevant.

- the Redress Scheme had got around these difficulties by greatly lowering the burden of evidence before someone could receive an award. Also, the Redress Board could and did make offers without a hearing and the great majority of the 13,000 or so applicants who had got awards – some 78.5% – had got them on that basis, without having to go to a hearing at all.

- While acknowledging that no scheme could remove all injuries suffered, the facts spoke for themselves and without the scheme many would have not got any award. The scheme of awards had been laid down by the Judge, the finances available to the scheme had not been capped and the scheme operated independently of Government. The Government did not propose to review or amend it. The Commission offered people the opportunity to tell their stories and former residents had eloquently told of their experiences.

- In the light of the Ryan Report the Government and the Dáil had called on the congregations for a further contribution. The congregations came forward with further contributions. The independent Panel reported on the financial assets. The Government had carefully considered the matter and its view, which he said is shared by the Dáil generally, is that the costs should be borne on a 50:50 basis by the Congregations and the Government. The mechanism to achieve this split by further contributions from the Congregations over time will be pursued, with any further contributions being for State use.

- The proposed Fund is intended to address ongoing needs of former residents to cope. As the cash contributions become available it is proposed to put the €110m into a Fund to benefit survivors/former residents, with the properties offered – to the extent it is suitable – going towards the State’s costs of redress. It was important for everyone to move on to the next stage. There will be a process of engagement with survivors’ representatives regarding the Fund and he will be asking the relevant Ministers to progress matters.

Jun

24

Statutory fund. Ministers Answer

Filed Under GOVERNMENT MINISTER - STATUTORY FUND | 28 Comments

Chun an Aire Oideachais agus Scileanna
To the Minister for Education and Skills
To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills the details regarding the agreement reached with the religious orders for the transfer of assets and cash in compensation in respect of persons (details supplied); the way in which she intends to distribute same to those known victims; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
- Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin.

for the dreadful treatment meted out to countless children banished to their ‘care’ over several decades

Freagra – Answer

Tánaiste Mary Coughlan

At the meeting on 15th April last, the Taoiseach advised the religious congregations of the Government’s view that it would be a fair and reasonable outcome in all the circumstances for the State and those responsible for the residential institutions, to meet the final costs of responding to residential institutional abuse, which are estimated to reach some €1.36bn, on a 50:50 basis.

As the Deputy is aware the Congregations are offering significant additional contributions, which they have valued at €348.51m. While more detailed work and discussion is necessary with the Congregations in relation to the detail of their property offers, assuming these contributions are fully realised, the Congregations’ collective contributions to date, when account is taken of the original €128m contribution under the 2002 Indemnity Agreement, amount to €476.51m. This leaves a target of over €200m to reach the 50% share of the overall projected costs, of some €680m. The Government requested that additional contributions be provided to the greatest degree possible in cash as a contribution to the planned National Children’s Hospital. Officials are engaging with each of the Congregations in relation to their current offers and how the objective of a 50:50 sharing of the overall costs will be achieved.

The Government announced its proposal to utilise the cash element of the Congregations’ current offers of contributions, which will amount to some €110m over the next few years, to establish a Statutory Fund, in keeping with the all party Motion passed by Dáil Éireann, supporting the proposal for a Trust for the support of victims and to other education and welfare purposes. Following consultation with the Congregations and the former residents as to the exact nature of the fund, how it will operate and the uses to which it will be put, the arrangements for the Statutory Fund will be considered by the Government. This Fund, which will be to support the needs of survivors is separate and distinct from the compensation scheme operated by the independent Residential Institutions Redress Board, which provides fair and reasonable awards to victims of institutional childhood abuse.

Jun

22

Lord Mayor’s Statement on abuse suffered by Children in Residential Institutions

Filed Under Child Abuse, RYAN REPORT - Institutional Abuse of Children in Care | 16 Comments

Press Statement 17th June 2010.

Lord Mayor’s Statement on abuse suffered by Children in Residential Institutions.

At its meeting on 14th June 2010, Dublin City Council debated the findings of recent reports on the issue of the abuse suffered by children in this country. Cllr. Mannix Flynn put forward the motion and also called on the Lord Mayor to issue a public statement, acknowledging that the abuse had happened, and expressing sorrow and regret at what had happened to children at the hands of the church and the state. Cllr. Flynn read a statement into the record covering the issue of child abuse in general, with reference to the findings of the Murphy, Ryan and Ferns Reports. “Finally after decades everybody accepts that what happened to thousands of children was awful. But it wasn’t just awful, it was criminal and so far the only people who have been criminalised in this whole sorry tale are those children sent by the courts to these institutions and that’s simply not good enough”, said Cllr. Flynn.

He also called on fellow Councillors to lend their support for a new Charter for Children and a new Bill of Rights. The ensuing debate involved several Councillors, all of whom expressed their solidarity with the victims of abuse in childhood. The Lord Mayor commented that the debate was extremely moving and that the sentiments expressed by Cllr. Flynn had resonated throughout the Council Chamber, evidenced by the expressions of support given by his fellow Councillors and Management, who expressed their regret and sorrow at what had happened most especially to children who were criminalised and incarcerated under the Non-Attendance of School Act. The Lord Mayor stated that she fully supported and endorsed Cllr. Flynn’s motion, which was unanimously carried, and formally read it into the record of the City Council. She expressed her deep concern and regret at the abusive treatment to which children had been subjected, and emphasised the necessity to bring the perpetrators of these appalling crimes to justice. She added that the City Council would facilitate, where possible, the provision of relevant minutes of School Attendance Board Meetings through an archivist’s report, while respecting the sensitivities of the victims involved.

Ends.

For further information – please contact Lord Mayor, Cllr. Emer Costello at Tel: 086 3831805 or Cllr. Mannix Flynn at Tel: 087-2246664

Note to Editor

FULL TEXT OF MOTION – COUNCILLOR MANNIX FLYNN

That this Committee calls on the Lord Mayor, Councillor Emer Costello to issue a statement in relation to the Dublin Diocesan Report and its findings also that the Lord Mayor call a debate on the issue in chambers. Dublin City Councillors have a role to play in how the safety and the welfare of our children is managed and that this Council issue a statement of regret and apology to all those who were abused in residential institutions. The then Dublin Corporation administrated the Non-attendance of School Act on behalf of the Department of Justice. Children were brought before the Children’s Court under this act and incarcerated for long periods of time throughout their childhoods where they suffered horrendous abuse at the hands of those whose care they were entrusted. It is the duty of the now Dublin City Council to acknowledge its role in the history of residential institutions and set its record straight in the interest of healing and reconciliation. I believe it is now time for us to take this positive, responsible position.

Jun

21

Charity still funded a year after concerns raised

Filed Under Child Abuse | 58 Comments

By Jennifer Hough

Monday, June 21, 2010

A CHARITY for survivors of institutional abuse continues to get government funding despite senior HSE management being shown evidence more than a year ago that there was “concern” over how the money was being used.

In a letter to senior managers in the HSE, Oliver Burke, acting administrator of Right of Place, a charity for survivors of institutional abuse, wrote “we all agreed the evidence gave cause for concern”, and that “sample evidence” proved all was not being done in a “correct and democratic matter”.

The letter, dated August 31, 2009, refers to a meeting held the previous March between Mr Burke and HSE managers, where he first raised concerns about how the charity was being run.

Right of Place has been under scrutiny after the HSE ordered that founder Noel Barry answer questions in relation to how it was spending its money.

However, questions remain unanswered and no independent investigation has taken place.

One of the country’s largest survivor groups, it has received millions of euro in Government funding since 2002 and continues to receive money.

Mr Burke, who has fought for more than a year to have Mr Barry removed and to have an audit of accounts carried out, said he felt the HSE was now trying to cover up its own ineptitude in dealing with the matter.

“I trusted the HSE to investigate, but now that this is not happening I want it all out in the open.”

Having received no adequate response to his August letter, Mr Burke followed it up with another in December.

In that letter, addressed to senior manager Gerry Kelly, Mr Burke requested that funding to Right of Place be stopped pending an investigation into all accounts and matters of a financial nature.

“I know you have tried your best to meet with Mr Barry but he still fails to answer any of your questions or will not provide proper documentation, unfortunately this is not satisfactory to any of us concerned in this matter,” the letter states.

“Your department supplies a budget to Right of Place for very clear and specific reasons as laid out in the budget agreement, this has not been done correctly now for quite some time, and members who need genuine assistance are not getting it.”

Mr Burke has now written to the Minster for Health Mary Harney requesting intervention.

In his letter to the minister, this month, Mr Burke outlines the problems within the charity, including incidents of intimidation within the charity, some which have been brought to the attention of Gardaí and asks for a “full and independent investigation”.

In the letter he claims state funds and religious donations were “seriously misused and are unaccounted for”.

This story appeared in the printed version of the Irish Examiner Monday, June 21, 2010

Jun

15

State still in denial over Magdalene scandal

Filed Under News | 18 Comments

The Irish Times – Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Our capacity for self-delusion has had awful results for those who were locked up, but has also contributed to our economic ruin, writes FINTAN O’TOOLE

THE FIRST time I wrote about the issue of the women who were incarcerated in Magdalene homes was in September 1993. The grounds of the largest such home in the UK or Ireland, High Park in Drumcondra, Dublin, had been sold off to a property developer by the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity. The graveyard was included in the deal – the bodies of the Magdalenes were dug up and re-interred in Glasnevin Cemetery. I noticed that at the same time, the sisters had lost a lot of money speculating on the shares of what was Ireland’s first great bubble company, Guinness Peat Aviation.

What was not so obvious at the time was the deeper connection between these two events. Part of the reason things went so badly wrong in the way the Irish economy unfolded over the next 15 years was the extraordinary capacity for denial in Irish culture. Most societies have a talent for self-delusion but ours operated on a heroic scale. We were able to deny not just things we suspected to be the case but things we knew to be the case, whether it was the widespread corruption in politics or the fact that property simply could not be worth anything like what we were paying for it.

That capacity didn’t come from nowhere. It was formed by many, many decades of practice. With its hatred of the poor (but not of poverty), of the deviant, of the dissenting, of the disturbing, Irish society developed extraordinarily powerful mechanisms for filtering out unwanted people. One of them was emigration. The other was institutionalisation. We locked up vast numbers of people in industrial schools, Magdalene homes and mental hospitals.

The existence of these institutions was not, of course, a secret but knowledge was neutered – in large part by the sense that, since the church was running so many of these institutions, they must be good. When I wrote about High Park in 1993, for example, a no-doubt well-intentioned lady wrote to The Irish Times to share her memories of visiting the home to see her aunt who was a nun there: “My memory is of a group of tough, middle-aged Dublin women having lots of fun at the expense of my aunt, who also enjoyed the ‘craic’. These women were there from choice – they asked to be admitted, it was a ‘women’s refuge’ and protecting them was part of the nuns’ work. Sure, laundry work was hard and still is – but the women were well cared for . . .”

This habit of denial had terrible consequences for those who were locked up, but it also fed into the economic catastrophe that ultimately overtook us. The conviction that what we want to be true must be true and that anyone who doubts it must be deluded, malicious or both, undermined our collective ability to recognise what was happening to us. And if we are to change the culture that has proved to be so toxic, we have to develop a new habit of mind in which we take our own realities seriously.

It is for this reason that the continuing official denial of the State’s responsibility to the survivors of the Magdalene homes is not just a marginal question. If, after all, our Government can’t face up to the obvious injustice of locking up women for life and using them as forced labourers simply because they were judged to present a moral danger to society, how will it ever face up to bigger and more complex issues of responsibility and accountability?

Dealing decently with the relatively small number of Magdalene survivors ought not to be particularly hard. The systems in place for the survivors of industrial schools provide the obvious model, with the added opportunity to avoid the outrageous aspects of the deal that saw the State taking almost the full rap for that scandal. The problem is that the Government is still in almost complete denial.

First we had Batt O’Keeffe, as minister for education last year, claiming that the State “did not refer individuals nor was it complicit in referring individuals to Ireland’s Magdalene laundries” (it did and it was) and referring to the women who were forced to work in the laundries as “employees”. Both of these claims were subsequently withdrawn.

In April, however, Brian Cowen, answering questions from Fianna Fáil TD Michael Kennedy, engaged in further obfuscation. He claimed that “the position of women in such laundries was not analogous with that of children in the residential institutions that were the subject of the Ryan report” and that “the Magdalene laundries were run by a small number of religious congregations”, implying that the State had nothing to do with them.

From the 1930s onwards, the State transferred women from mother-and-baby homes and country homes into Magdalene laundries.

As late as 1970, children as young as 13 were being confined in Magdalene laundries – some of them transferred there from industrial schools. The laundries were unquestionably a part of a system in which the State was enmeshed. Taking responsibility for those realities would be a small step towards decency.

Jun

6

An Independent State Appointed Representative imperative for Abuse Survivors

Filed Under News | 77 Comments

Following a meeting of it’s members, ‘Let Our Voices Emerge’ have decided to give their wholehearted support to those Survivors of Institutional abuse who are now calling on the State to appoint an independent spokesperson for them.They state that the present group leaders were not elected by them, and they fear their concerns and opinions re the compensation schemes are not being listened to.

After the Taoiseachs apology in 1999 approximately eight different groups emerged, all getting an inordinate amount of State funding to support survivors. Friction over leaderships and finances ensured then as it does now – that the groups stay separate and many Survivors who have spoken to us state they feel no sense of cohesion in their struggle for help and justice. Many state that there is no democratically elected single leader to represent them, and they fear the compensation from the Religious/ State coffers will not be dealt with effectively. Following the meeting last April with the Taoiseach which descended in to name calling and fighting amongst the various group leaders, they fear the loss of public support should this continue.

‘Voicesemerge’ formed in 2002 and though we are a registered charity we have never received State funding. Our purpose, as ex inmates of the Industrial schools was to support those managers/inmates whom we felt were being accused unjustly for compensation in the Redress Board. Many of our own members- themselves abused, some viciously, were not willing to see an innocent nuns/brothers/inmates brought down in the search for justice.

Back in 2003 we requested that the State appoint an independent representative for all of the Survivors instead of funding so many groups individually. This provoked an outcry from the groups.We also asked that the State audit the individual groups, again (except for Ashlinn), there was outrage.

To achieve justice for so many Survivors a State representative must be appointed.

Florence Horsman Hogan
‘Let Our Voices Emerge’

Jun

4

Seriously Concerned at Number of Organisations.

Filed Under Child Abuse | 34 Comments

From the Letters page of The Irish Times 04 June 2010

Madam, – I welcome Vincent J Lavery’s letter (June 2nd).

Funds for victims of abuse.

As someone who was abused while detained in an industrial school, I am seriously concerned at the number of organisations purporting to represent “victims of abuse” that have emerged around the country.

These organisations appear to be unaccountable to anyone, least of all the people they claim to represent. Inquires made by survivors of abuse directly to the representatives of these groups more often than not go unanswered.

Those of us who were abused while in the care of religious orders and the State, have a right to know where and how money obtained from the exchequer on our behalf is being used. What seems to be a veil of secrecy regarding very substantial funding must be pulled down. – Yours, etc,

PADDY DOYLE,

Author of The God Squad,

CityWest,

Saggart,

Co Dublin.

Next Page →