We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
FINE GAEL’S EDUCATION Minister, Richard Bruton has said that there are no “plans” to reopen the State’s redress scheme for new entrants in light of the Tuam Baby scandal.
However, with the Commission of Investigation into Mother and Baby Homes underway, it is important to start thinking about the process of redress that is likely to be set up after the investigation is completed.
Looking back at the experience of survivors incarcerated in Industrial and Reformatory Schools in applying for redress from the Residential Institutions Redress Board (RIRB), we can identify what a redress process should and shouldn’t look like.
I interviewed 25 men and women about their experience of applying for redress from the RIRB, and this is what they had to say about the process.
Re-traumatisation
A major issue for most survivors was that by the time the redress process was over, they felt re-traumatised. An inquiry should seek to limit this trauma; however, this is not possible in its current format because of the legalistic overtures that characterise the process.
First, many were dissatisfied with the way their solicitors dealt with their claims, and felt that the legal system had benefitted financially from their trauma. The Redress Board’s Annual Report (2008) stated that “the average costs and expenses paid to an applicant’s solicitor at the end of 2008 amounted to €10,845 per application, or 16.9% of the award”.
Second, the application procedure, (writing a detailed statement and being assessed by a psychiatrist) resulted in psychological wounds being opened up after years of consignment to the deepest reaches of the mind.
Third, the hearing procedure was interpreted by some as similar to being on trial, where one of the survivors Theresa described that after five and a half hours of questioning and critical examination by the panel of “experts”, she was left exhausted, traumatised and had to make her own way home.
Finally, the waiver form that each person had to sign when an award for compensation was made caused a lot of distress to survivors. While the waiver form can’t stop people who accepted an award for compensation telling their story, this legal threat created a climate of confusion and of fear, and consequently, they felt abused again by the State.
No justice
Survivors were also critical of the lack of prosecutions that were followed up after the Commission released its report in 2009.
Figures from Amnesty International’s report (2011) revealed that there were 30,000 complaints of abuse to the inquiry, 14,448 applied for redress, yet only eleven cases of abuse were forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions and only three abusers were prosecuted.
This group of survivors also felt there was a lack of transparency throughout the inquiry and redress process. For example, many survivors interviewed felt that the operation of the points system that was used to determine how much compensation they were awarded was not transparent enough, and that in many instances their solicitor came to an agreement with the RIRB, with very little input from the survivor.
Overall, institutional survivors, Catholic Religious Orders and the state had significantly differing experiences of the inquiry and redress process. This was related to each group’s social and financial capital, where the state and the Catholic Church were politically and financially in a better position to engage with the justice system.
Recommendations for future redress schemes
In light of the above, there are four recommendations that should be taken into account in how future inquiry and redress processes (such as in the case of Mother and Baby Homes) should be set up.
First, in order to limit re-traumatisation, a redress process should veer away from legal overtures, such as designing a redress application that does not require legal representation. Neither should people be forced to make a detailed statement and have it assessed on the basis of a points system; this forces further re-trauma because survivors are encouraged to delve into memories they may prefer to forget.
Second, criminal convictions should be sought and followed through.
Third, the State should create a public archive where all materials relating to the institutions being investigated and a collection of testimonies from survivors, (with their permission) can be stored. This would go some way towards memorialising victims of abuse of state-funded institutions.
Finally, in the name of impartiality, the investigative team should be independent of the governing elite, (politicians, state departments and the legal system); this would go some way to limit the political capital that the state is able to wield during inquiry and redress processes.
Sinead Pembroke is a researcher at TASC (Think-Tank on Action for Social Change), and previously a research fellow on the Magdalene Laundry oral history project in UCD. She is also the daughter of a survivor who went through the RIRB scheme.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Cool article. The Brits are hilarious.
@Lisa Saputo: and they make your corps wait wks till burial . We just prefer a 3 day bender
Another tradition is one hundred years old this week, the tradition of Irish Republicans refusing to swear allegiance to the British queen and refusing to take their seats. Surely it’s time FG and FF put their money where their mouth is, run candidates in the north and take their seats in Westminster? Surely if they believe SF should take their seats then they would do the same? Surely they would win seats in the north after all they’ve done for Northern Nationalists? Surely!!
@European Bob: that tradition is not 100 years old. The tradition died out in 1921 when Ireland got its independence, but was started again in the 70s by a splinter faction of the Workers Party calling itself Sinn Fein.
@European Bob: calm down Shirley.
@European Bob: surely you can’t be serious?!
@Big Red: Actually the Workers Party came from Sinn Fein not the other way.
Sinn Fein split into Provisional and Official, the Officials became “Sinn Fein the workers party” then just “The workers Party” from which Democratic Left split, who then merged with (took over) Labour. I think The Workers Party is still around, but I believe that Thomas McGiolla was the last to be elected to any major position.
@European Bob: slight lack of understanding what a republic is, there Bob. A office holder of a republic cannot swear alligeance to any royal of any origin or to any other power that does not eminate for the people of that republic. FF, FG or anyone considering that would have to form an external party, taking note that any crossing of the party whip (over serving office holders) would be illegal and treasonous to that republic. I dont know, but I suspect it’s similar for the house of commons over there.
@Greg Blake: I’d imagine taking up the oath in the UK, would negate any right of SF MPs to direct or influence the voting of any SF TDs.
@Big Red: You might want to recheck your facts there. They are a little bit on the alternative side.
@Big Red: Note to Red, Ireland didn’t get its independence in 1921. 6 counties still occupied.
@European Bob: its a pity it can’t just become another British parliament tradition, where they symbolically deny sinn fein mps entry a few times, and then just let them take their seats…
@Big Red: partial independence
Maintaining all the fuss and feathers of empire is the root cause of the British sense of self importance.
@Kevin Barry: like wearing a shamrock to commemorate a 1,500 year dead kidnap victim Welsh “saint” who drove the non-existent snakes out of Ireland?
@Robin Pickering: you have us on that one. ;-), All countries have their quaint customs, it’s what makes the world interesting. As long as they are harmless, then let them at it.
@Greg Blake: true. Life would be boring if we were all the same.
A total bunch of clowns the lot of them
@Ciarān: word
@Ciarān: Why are they a bunch of clowns?
I knew a village bycicle who loved the black rod
“Right honourable” means a member of the privy council. Nothing to do with ministerial office
@Dave Ringer: that’s correct. Jeffrey Donaldson from the DUP gets referred to as “the right honourable” just because he is on the queen’s privy council. He is not a minister.
I find this very offensive to Blacks & Rods
MPs are traditionally called ‘honourable’, or ‘hon’ for short. They aren’t referred to by name by other members, but by the constituency they represent. The Speaker calls them by name.
A ‘friend’ is an MP in the same party; referring to others, they are just a ‘member’.
‘Right hon’ means the member is a member of the Privy Council; the get the letters PC after their name.
‘Hon and learned’ means the member is a QC, the equivalent of a SC.
‘Hon and gallant’ means the member is a Sir, a knight.
have your say