Cost of redress for abuse victims


A chara, – Niall Meehan (Letters, April 13th) wrote in relation to the Residential Institutions Redress Board: “At my request, Clare Daly TD recently asked the Minister for Education and Skills to list the institutions managed by the 18 congregations and those run by others. She was refused the information.”

The Mother and Baby Homes Commission in its Second Interim Report released this week includes a section on the redress scheme. At paragraph 4.17 it reports: “In 2015, the Department of Education and Skills provided the Commission with a list of the institutions which were brought to its attention . . . There are about 600 institutions on this list.” That list includes a wide range of institutions, but still it seems an extraordinarily high number. The list is not in the interim report. It seems likely that the institutions about which Niall Meehan seeks information are included in that list, among many others.

The 2014 Annual Report of the Redress Board (the most recent on its website) reports that by December 31st, 2014 the board had completed the process in 16,617 cases. Of those, 1,072 applications were withdrawn, refused or resulted in a nil or no award – 8.94 per cent, with 91.06 per cent accepted. The board commenced making awards in May 2003 and by December 31st, 2003 had completed the process in 587 cases, so the awards went ahead independently of the investigations of the Ryan Report of 2009.

As Niall Meehan wrote, the Ryan Commission investigated only abuse in Catholic institutions. Omitting “those run by others” seems to indicate a failure in justice and equity.

It is difficult too to understand why Clare Daly was refused the information requested. What is there to hide? The “Long Guide” to the Redress Scheme (on its website) lists 123 institutions in Appendix I, and adds another 16 in Appendices II and III. It does not identify “those run by others.” – Is mise,


Sandyford, Dublin 16.