Here's a quick thread on the Magdalene redress scheme. I have been years writing on this now. Anyway, here goes: Since the scheme was widened - just seven of the 97 women who have applied have received a payment. 14 women have yet to receive an offer over a dispute on dates
The scheme was widened in June 2018 following a scathing Ombudsman report which found the DOJ had wrongly refused some survivors access to redress payments and that the scheme had been maladministered.
Key among the findings was that women who registered on the rolls of training centres located on the same grounds and even in the same building as the laundries were refused.
The Irish Examiner first wrote about this issue as far back as 2015 - HSE uncovered evidence in 2012 that An Grianan training centre and High Park laundry were essentially "one and the same" yet An Grianan women were denied redress. Ombudsman report had same conclusion in 2017
A High Court case in 2017 found these women were denied fair procedures in how the decision to refuse them access to the scheme was reached. Now the Dept has widened the scheme after newspaper revelations, an Ombudsman report and a HC case yet the same issues are arising
14 of the women who were in An Grianan but worked in the laundry have yet to receive an offer of redress as the Order has told the DOJ that no girls were sent to work in the laundry post 1980
On three separate occasions, the legal team for the women has requested information on the evidence given by the order to the Restorative Justice Unit which administers the scheme to support this claim but has been refused it.
One of the key criticisms of the Ombudsman's report was that the DOJ relied on the evidence and sometimes just the word of the Order over that of the women on such matters. Here we are again in that situation, despite the HC accepting that children worked in the laundry post 1980
The women have learned that a potential reason for the 1980 cut-off point is a claim that a separate laundry was constructed at An Grianán 1980 and that no girls were sent to work in the main laundry as a result. Untrue
The Irish Examiner has obtained documents showing this laundry was constructed “in the early months of 1984”, at a cost of £17,001. The Order was partially reimbursed by the Eastern Health Board. So that claim is simply not sustainable.
A group of women have now written directly to justice minister Charlie Flanagan asking him to intervene. They said the information re 1980 coming from the Order is incorrect. "We know because we were there," they say.
It is now six years since Enda Kenny offered a State apology to Magdalene survivors. The Govt has been accused of walking back that apology ever since now claiming, repeatedly, that the McAleese report made “no finding” in relation to state liability with regard to the laundries.
These women should have been granted access to the redress scheme six years ago. And they continue to wait now - in 2019. It should be a bigger story than it is, frankly

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Conall Ó Fátharta

Conall Ó Fátharta Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ococonuts

Jun 5, 2021
Thread: Ok here is why I asked Prof Daly about the Commission's claim there are 2 death registers for Bessborough and elicited the bee in my bonnet remark. It was just a question and I hope to be wrong and that there are two. I hope it makes sense. Here goes:
2. The claim in the Fifth Interim Report of 2 registers was used to explain a discrepancy I had pointed out in a story. I had considered that there may be two so I spent a bit of time trying to find out if there was 2. Tusla records are clear on this point
3. Here is the inventory of the Bessborough records which transferred to Tusla (HSE originally in 2011). It clearly indicates that there is just one
Read 9 tweets
Jan 30, 2021
Thread:1/9 So, I’ve thought a lot about this before tweeting it as the M and B report is not about me but a section about my work. The Commission has a made a false statements about my work which formed the basis of a Sindo article. Here it goes:
2. I’ll address Sec 58 again - needless to say I don’t think the Fifth interim report addresses the issue satisfactorily. However, Sec 58 claims I did not report certain “caveats” in an unpublished Bessborough report I obtained. This is untrue. But first, these “caveats”
3. The author of the report does not state their analysis was based on a “cursory glance” at the records. Rather, the author states a cursory glance at the limited financial records revealed certain payments. A very different thing.
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!