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.
LAST UPDATE | 15 Nov 2021
A PUBLIC INQUIRY will be held in Northern Ireland to investigate mother and baby homes, Magdalene laundries and workhouses in the region, it has been confirmed.
Speaking at Stormont today, Deputy First Minister Michelle O’Neill said all the recommendations made by an expert panel last month have been accepted and that a public inquiry will examine the “past and present human rights violations” experienced by survivors.
“The publication of the report [last month] represents a major step forward for victims and survivors. I’m therefore pleased to inform members that the Executive accepts all of the recommendations in the panel’s report,” O’Neill said.
The Vice President of Sinn Féin said research carried out by Queen’s University and Ulster University highlighted “the horrendous experiences of women and girls and their children admitted to these institutions over many decades” and “uncovered some shocking and disturbing facts”.
O’Neill said the Executive “will not delay” in bringing forward legislation to establish the public inquiry and a redress scheme.
At the start of October, a panel of Stormont-commissioned experts called for a public inquiry into the “great scandal” of mother and baby homes, Magdalene laundries and workhouses in the North.
The Truth Recovery Design Panel recommended the establishment of a public inquiry and a non-statutory independent panel to allow those who were sent to the institutions, and their families, to give testimony in a less adversarial format.
People can choose to give evidence to either the inquiry or the panel, O’Neill confirmed today.
Survivors and relatives have welcomed the announcement, describing the recommendations as “groundbreaking”.
Other recommendations included immediate redress payments for survivors at the outset of the twin-track investigatory process, as well as legislation to ensure access to the records of the institutions under scrutiny.
Outlining the Executive’s next steps, O’Neill told the Stormont Assembly that women who should have been shown “love, sympathy and kindness were instead isolated and excluded”.
“Suffering was compounded on suffering,” she said.
“Let’s call this out for what it was. Abuse. Violation. Women and girls who had done no wrong – punished for becoming pregnant outside marriage, punished for being victims of rape and incest, humiliated, subjected to forced labour, robbed of their babies, denied the truth. It was wrong on every level.”
‘Months of hard work, commitment, blood, sweat and tears’
O’Neill and First Minister Paul Givan spoke to survivors on the phone this morning ahead of the announcement.
Maria Cogley, who was born in Marianvale mother and baby home in Belfast, was present on the call.
Speaking to The Journal this afternoon, she said: “This is a momentous day for all victims and survivors of Northern Ireland mother and baby homes, Magdalene laundries and workhouses.”
Cogley welcomed the fact the Executive accepted all of the panel’s recommendations.
“We are delighted and relieved to hear the Deputy First Minister say that ‘cherry picking’ the report’s recommendations wasn’t an option.”
She continued: “These recommendations are groundbreaking and we have reached this point after an emotional, challenging and traumatic period of months of hard work, commitment, blood, sweat and tears.
“All institutions involved, including religious institutions, will be expected to cooperate from the onset of an independent panel and if they choose not to they will be compelled to do so by the full statutory inquiry.”
Cogley noted that O’Neill and Givan “made many reassurances” that legislation will ensure “full access to the records from social services and the institutions involved”.
They also assured survivors “that immediate work will begin on setting up a consultative forum” and “collaboration with the Irish Government”, she told us.
“We have a long way to go fighting for the rights of mothers coerced into adoption, adopted adults and those that were held in institutions. Together, our equal voices will be strong and we will hold them to their promises,” she added.
Maria Arbuckle – who reunited with her son after almost four decades apart earlier this year – was also present on the call.
Arbuckle told The Journal: “I would like to say thank you to the Executive for accepting all recommendations, and a bigger thank you to all the warriors who fought this war for years.
“I also want to thank the Truth Recovery Design Panel for helping us set out our needs and wants. I hope there is no delay in facilitating the recommendations,” she added.
‘Great scandal’
Earlier this year, a major academic research report was published outlining the scale of mistreatment endured by thousands of women and girls in the institutions.
The study, by Queen’s University and Ulster University, found that more than 14,000 girls and women went through the doors of mother and baby homes, Magdalene laundries and other institutions between 1922 and 1990.
It found that women were mistreated, held against their will and forced to give up children for adoption.
One of the expert panel members, Professor Phil Scraton, a Queen’s University academic known for his work investigating the 1989 Hillsborough disaster, last month said the pain of the survivors could never be assuaged.
“This is one of the great scandals of our time – not just here in the north, but across Ireland and across England and Wales and Scotland,” he said at the time.
Also last month, police in Ireland announced a probe into allegations of abuse at the institutions.
In the Republic, the details of a redress scheme for survivors of mother and baby homes and county homes are set to come before Cabinet tomorrow before opening for applications next year.
Contains reporting from Press Association
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Sentence is still too lenient. 4 times the legal limit, kills one person and paralysis for another.
I listened to the mother of Kate being interviewed on Newstalk and thought she was a lovely, brave woman going through a terrible time. She did not think it would serve any purpose a drunk driver going to prison. She asked that no one get into a car being driven by someone who had been drinking.
We would all be safer if you drink but not drive.
“Out of line with other decided cases” – which clearly must have been too lenient as well! So judges perpetuate their inadequate sentencing because of precedent.
It seems to be the very flawed system on which our entire legal system operates. Basically an original mistake gets extended forever.
This again leaves a huge question mark over the severity of the sentence handed out yesterday to the ex fireman who had consensual sex with a 16 year old and got 7 years in prison. Murdering one person and paralysing another is only four years.
You can’t have consensual sex with a minor. They cannot give consent. This, however, is a disgrace and no deterrent. Judges are totally out of touch with the real world.
If I had too much to drink, killed someone with a weapon and claimed it was an accident? What sentence would I get, If any and the judicial system is a joke in this country.
As I said yesterday completely incompetent Judges…..joke
How the Fcuk is that allowed?
Politicians allow it, they have a bar in their workplace and consume alcohol while working.
They should have doubled his sentence for having the neck to appeal. Outrageous decision.
This country and its judicial system are an absolute joke. What kind of an example does this give. 4 years for what he did. His first sentence was too lenient in my eyes.
An embarrassment
Wonder if I paralysed a judges daughter would I just get the 1 year?
Hold on went from seven to four years. He should of been dragged out and shot.
Can this also set a precedent,for appeal, for that drink drivers sentence last week? On the basis of this, what sentence should have been imposed on the idiot in Donegal. The judiciary in this country is a shambles.
The problem seems to be that there is no central authority issuing guidelines so you have each judge in their own little fiefdom sentencing people according to their own interpretation of the law. We really need minimum sentences and a system where if a judge feels that a particular case warrants a lesser sentence due to mitigating circumstances the case is referred to a higher court.
There should be a mandatory minimum sentence for anyone who kills or maims another person by driving while drunk. Say 12 years and lifetime ban from driving with no chance of appeal, this would act as a good deterrent.
€206877
This is how much the state will save by this appeal. Its in the states interest to grant these appeals. This is why we have laughable sentencing laws. The state is far more interested in money than its citizens. We have seen this again and again. Money trumps life.
http://www.iprt.ie/prison-facts-2
How much will the paralysed women receive for care help?
If only Dexter Morgan was real
Is that judge off his nut? If anything the original sentence was too lenient!
It shows the courts are getting more comfortable with this type of crime hence the low sentence
So they’re trying to extend the sentence in that Donegal case while reducing the sentence in this one? Does our legal system have any clue what it’s doing?
Another nonsense sentence for causing such devestation due to being an idiot behind the wheel driving drunk. These judges are clearly blotto when they hand down these terms.
Who cares what you said.
F*ck off troll.
10 years . End of story
Sentencing in this country especially for drink driving road accidents are a disgrace.
A central tenet of democracy is that the branches of Government must be independent of each other. The executive enacts legislation and the judiciary interprets the wording of a given statute when it is tested by way of using it to prosecute a crime. The judges’ interpretation becomes a precedent for other cases of a similar nature into the future. This is called “common law” and is equally as binding as legislation, and is used throughout the land. Sentencing is limited by a variety of factors: legislation, “mandatory sentencing”, and the concept of “fairness.” This chap’s sentence has to be proportionate to those who previously did similar and with a similar outcome. The Victim Impact Statement serves no function other than to give the victims a voice (make them “feel better”.)
Excuse the language but that’s a FN joke. No justice here at all.
have your say