Fears mother-and-baby homes inquiry will not go far enough

Irish Examiner
November 18, 2014

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/fears-mother-and-baby-homes-inquiry-will-not-go-far-enough-298233.html

Initial enthusiasm from campaigners that the inquiry would be as wide ranging as possible, has been replaced by a worried scepticism, writes Conall Ó Fátharta

AS WE await the formation of the Commission to Inquire into Mother and Baby Homes, the private attitude of Government to another related scandal — the Magdalene Laundries — is instructive.

Following the publication of the McAleese report, this newspaper pointed out that Taoiseach Enda Kenny’s two-week delay in offering a formal state apology may have been explained in one simple word: Money.

More than that, it was pointed out that the key concern for Government was about how to handle offering any redress that could open the floodgates “to more compensation schemes arising from other human rights abuses in mother-and-baby homes and psychiatric institutions”.

For the former of these institutions, we have now reached that point.

Unlike, the Magdalene Laundries, where successive governments successfully avoided taking responsibility for the State’s role, it can’t do the same for mother-and-baby homes.

In short, it’s an open and shut case.

However, initial enthusiasm from campaigners that the inquiry would be as wide-ranging as possible, has been replaced by a worried scepticism due to the terms of reference — promised by the end of summer — having been put on the long finger.

Such delays are never encouraging and the interdepartmental report on mother-and-baby homes didn’t instil a lot of confidence.

It advised the Government that at least nine institutions should be included in the inquiry. However, when answering a question about the scale of illegal adoptions in 2011, current Children’s Minister James Reilly cited a figure of 40 mother-and-baby homes.

A spreadsheet prepared by Adoption Rights Alliance, Justice for Magdalenes Research, and Seán Lucey of Queen’s University and given to former children’s minister Charlie Flanagan in June lists at least 150 institutions, from mother-and-baby homes and county homes to private nursing homes that were involved in the adoption of children born to unmarried mothers.

Unsurprisingly, campaigners wonder as to the attitude of Government behind closed doors and if the delays are part of a concerted effort to narrow the terms of reference as much as possible so as to limit the scale of any inquiry.

In this regard, the draft memorandum for government prepared by the Department of Justice in March 2011 — just months before setting up the McAleese inquiry — is instructive.

Throughout the document, discussing an issue closely related to mother- and-baby homes, two themes dominate.

Firstly, the State had no involvement with Magdalene Laundries and should avoid engaging with religious orders in case it might give such an impression.

Secondly, the possibility of having to offer redress to vulnerable women who were employed as slave labour is seen as a “danger”.

The fear of redress is made abundantly clear under the heading “Cost to the Exchequer” and was clearly a concern for both Finance minister Michael Noonan and then justice minister Alan Shatter.

“The minister [for justice Alan Shatter] is conscious of the minister for finance’s view that the proposals contained in the memorandum previously circulated would very likely generate pressure for opening up redress. The minister is conscious of the danger but considers that the IHRC [Irish Human Rights Commission] assessment has to be addressed and that the work of the interdepartmental committee will strengthen the position of the Government in dealing with the ongoing campaign,” said the memo.

Earlier in the document, much attention is focused on dismissing any claims of state liability. It outlines how officials met with a senior lecturer from NUI Maynooth “who is also a religious” and an archivist who were doing a history of the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity. The memo then proceeds to offer a remarkably benign account of life in a Magdalene Laundry describing them as a “refuge” where women “were provided with food and clothing and provided with a ‘religious’ name to protect their anonymity and past”.

It refers to women staying for “relatively short periods” and returning “on multiple occasions” and when ill where they “received care and a Christian burial”.

No reference is made to the fact that the women were not paid for their labour.

Nor is reference made to the fact that many of the women who died in Magdalene Laundries remained there for decades, are buried in mass graves many of which are unmarked, contain the wrong names or lie vandalised and forgotten.

A grave recently discovered by Justice for Magdalenes Research shows a third of the women buried were in the connected laundry for more than 50 years.

The view of the Department of Justice was clear, stating that it was “not aware of any facts that would give rise to state liability or responsibility for abuses in Magdalene Laundries”.

In fact, it noted that a range of government departments were concerned “that engaging with the religious orders might give the impression that the State was accepting responsibility in this area”.

However, the most vociferous reactions are reserved for the IHRC’s 2010 report on the issue, with the memo stating that Mr Shatter had “serious reservations about the methodology, accuracy and conclusions of the IHRC Report”.

“Of most concern is the lack of balance and any evidence to support the conclusions. The IHRC report is effectively based on allegations put forward by JFM (Justice for Magdalenes) and no effort was made to obtain clarification, information or observations from the State or (apparently) the religious orders on any of the issues raised,” states the memo.

It further states that in “the Justice area (and possible other areas as well) the report contains some inaccuracies and misleading statements”, while hitting out at its “underlying presumption that any inquiry will confirm that there were serious abuses and that the State rather than the religious orders should provide redress”.

Remarkably, just two years earlier while opposition spokesperson, Mr Shatter took an entirely different view on the State’s role in the Magdalene Laundries.

“There is now irrefutable evidence available from the Department of Justice that this State and the courts colluded in sending young women to what were then known as the Magdalene asylums and they ended up in the Magdalene Laundries and they were treated appallingly. Some of them have never recovered from the manner in which they were treated and their lives have been permanently blighted,” he said.

Mr Shatter went on to say that the State was “directly complicit” in such “barbaric cruelty” through court records and files held by the Department of Justice.

The Government may be saying all the right things publicly with reference to the mother-and-baby Homes inquiry. However, behind closed doors, more cynical concerns may be being aired.