Mother and baby home victim says Executive should 'hang their heads in shame' over new proposals
More than 14,000 pregnant women and girls passed through the secretive institutions, with many found to have been mistreated, held against their will and forced to give up children for adoption.
A bill to establish an inquiry into mother and baby homes, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses - and an associated redress scheme - passed its first stage in the Stormont Assembly on Monday.The proposals are expected to cost around £80 million.
Adele Johnston who was born in a home and later sent to one when she was a pregnant teenager says those affected haven't been listened to and the Department needs to go back to the drawing board.Speaking of her experience in the homes she said: "It was very demeaning and demoralizing.
"We were made to work, we were made to feel that we were unworthy, unfit, that we weren't fit to look after a child and that, the best place for a child was to be adopted."
She had high hopes for Stormont proposals to deal with this dark period of our past, but feels let down after a meeting with the First and Deputy First Ministers on Monday.
"We didn't expect all that we asked, but we did not expect it to be so brutal and it was brutal.
"We were corralled into one meeting and we were dealt one body blow after another.
"And we feel very badly let down by the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the TEO.
"Actually, they need to hang their heads in shame for what they done yesterday."Concerns have been expressed that 'huge swathes' of potential applicants to a long awaited redress scheme are set to be excluded.They were run by the Catholic Church, religious orders, some Protestant denominations as well as the State, with some in operation until 1995.First Minister Michelle O'Neill said they hope the legislation 'demonstrates our sincere commitment to respecting and fulfilling the wishes of those who for many decades have suffered and been silenced'.The Executive Bill is to establish a statutory public inquiry and a statutory redress scheme at an estimated cost of £80 million, which includes almost £60 million in initial redress payments to cover about 6,600 claims.Each eligible claimant is to receive a payment of £10,000, and a £2,000 payment will be made to each eligible family member on behalf of a loved one who has died since September 29, 2011.A further Individually Assessed Payment (IAP) for the specific harm suffered by an individual is to follow the public inquiry.The ministers also met with survivors of the institutions on Monday.However some who attended the meeting expressed concern over those who are excluded by the proposals.The legal firm KRW Law, which represents many of the victims and survivors, described 'huge disquiet over the prospective exclusion of many survivors'.They said the cut-off for posthumous claims for deceased birth mothers and children of 2011 'cuts out a huge swathe of prospective applicants', while victims of work houses appear to be excluded, and the 'blanket removal' of foster care home survivors.There is also concern around the limit on the sum proposed by way of interim payment with no allowance for inflation.Solicitor Aine Rice, of KRW's historic abuse team, said they reject the current proposals as 'unfit for purpose'.She said: 'So much work has been put in by many people to get to this stage only for it to be undone in one fell swoop.'There's an insensitivity underpinning all of this which makes it galling.'We reject the current proposals as unfit for purpose. More, much more, needs done to address the imbalance in play here. We need to see a complete U-turn by the time we reach the next stage of the Bill, but time is running out fast.'We are told that many are thinking of leaving the consultation forum and threatening protest.'Institution survivor Marie Arbuckle said the latest proposals are a 'kick in the teeth for many survivors'.She added: 'It seems to me that the Government hasn't listened to us properly at all.'Why do a consultation in the first place if the wishes and hopes of survivors aren't taken on board?'I don't think lessons have been learned from what happened in the south of Ireland.'The understandable drive to save money has simply gone too far, and all at the expense of the wishes of victims.'We have lost all confidence in the process we worked so hard on for the last three years.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
21 hours ago
- The Guardian
It's time to rethink how we measure labor in the US
Last week the Wall Street Journal reported that, as a result of the 'tougher environment' in the labor market, companies are 'in control again' and are warning applicants of 'long hours and few boundaries'. At the same time some industries are reporting worker shortages due to Donald Trump's immigration crackdown. And then there's artificial intelligence, which is about to devastate the jobs market – or is about to create new jobs. Amid all this change, what do we really know about the jobs market? Just the other week the Department of Labor said the economy added 147,000 new jobs to the economy. So that seems encouraging? But the official figures are subject to revision – and big ones too. The labor department has said its own numbers were overstated by as much as 818,000 during the first eight months of 2024. The payroll giant ADP is more in line with the some pessimists on Wall Street, saying that the private economy shrank by 33,000 in June. But their competitor, Paychex, reported that small business employment – which represents about half of the country's workers – has continued to 'hold steady' throughout this year. Job openings 'jumped' to a six-month high last month. Does anyone know how the labor market is actually doing? No economist, no government agency, no academic that I know has yet figured out how many Americans are working or not. Why? Because it's not just about jobs anymore. It's about income. The 'jobs' data we read isn't relevant. Last week a report in Fortune introduced us the concept of the 'over-employed'. These are workers – many in the tech industry – that are holding down more than one job at a time, with some making as much as $3,000 per day working for multiple employers. But the over-employed trend goes beyond this. That's because in the same week, new data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics revealed what we already knew: workers working remotely were logging two hours less hours per day than their counterparts coming into the office. So what are they doing with this extra time? Maybe they're watching Netflix. Others were generating more income for themselves doing other things, like starting their own businesses. According to new data from the Census Bureau: almost 460,000 applications were filed for new businesses in June alone, a level almost twice the amount of the monthly average before the pandemic. We all know these 'workers'. Some have multiple full-time jobs. Others have multiple part-time jobs. Many have multiple sources of income. They drive Ubers. They have Etsy shops. They're selling used sneakers on eBay and working late shifts under the table at the local bar. They write programs. They work with data. They do it all! Are we taking all of these people into consideration when analyzing the 'job market?' Some of the 'over-employed' and really just underpaid and need the extra work to make ends meet, unfortunately. According to a new NerdWallet data, nearly two in five Americans are aiming to make more money this year and 10% have started a side business or second job just to cover basic necessities. In this increasingly complicated 'jobs' market perhaps it is time for economists to stop evaluating the labor market in terms of jobs. This is quickly becoming obsolete. We need to measure income. How many people over the age of 18 in the US are earning more than, say $50,000 per year, taking into consideration all sources of income and inflation-adjusted? What percentage is that compared to the working-age population? How has that increased or decreased over time? Isn't this more relevant than the numbers we're getting now? And shouldn't the numbers come from actual, real data and not from an unreliable Department of Labor survey that's revised 10 times after it is initially published? Can't we get this information from tax returns, social security and private sources such as Etsy, Amazon, eBay, ADP and Paychex? Can't this be calculated and updated monthly and annually? Of course it can. Major economic policy decisions still hinge on the unemployment rate and jobs growth. Politicians get re-elected or ejected on this data. But in a job market that's being shaken by AI, immigration and the rapid rise of side gigs, it's time we rethought how we measure the health of the labor market.
The Guardian
a day ago
- The Guardian
It's time to rethink how we measure labor
Last week the Wall Street Journal reported that, as a result of the 'tougher environment' in the labor market, companies are 'in control again' and are warning applicants of 'long hours and few boundaries'. At the same time some industries are reporting worker shortages due to Donald Trump's immigration crackdown. And then there's artificial intelligence, which is about to devastate the jobs market – or is about to create new jobs. Amid all this change, what do we really know about the jobs market? Just the other week the Department of Labor said the economy added 147,000 new jobs to the economy. So that seems encouraging? But the official figures are subject to revision – and big ones too. The labor department has said its own numbers were overstated by as much as 818,000 during the first eight months of 2024. The payroll giant ADP is more in line with the some pessimists on Wall Street, saying that the private economy shrank by 33,000 in June. But their competitor, Paychex, reported that small business employment – which represents about half of the country's workers – has continued to 'hold steady' throughout this year. Job openings 'jumped' to a six-month high last month. Does anyone know how the labor market is actually doing? No economist, no government agency, no academic that I know has yet figured out how many Americans are working or not. Why? Because it's not just about jobs anymore. It's about income. The 'jobs' data we read isn't relevant. Last week a report in Fortune introduced us the concept of the 'over-employed'. These are workers – many in the tech industry – that are holding down more than one job at a time, with some making as much as $3,000 per day working for multiple employers. But the over-employed trend goes beyond this. That's because in the same week, new data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics revealed what we already knew: workers working remotely were logging two hours less hours per day than their counterparts coming into the office. So what are they doing with this extra time? Maybe they're watching Netflix. Others were generating more income for themselves doing other things, like starting their own businesses. According to new data from the Census Bureau: almost 460,000 applications were filed for new businesses in June alone, a level almost twice the amount of the monthly average before the pandemic. We all know these 'workers'. Some have multiple full-time jobs. Others have multiple part-time jobs. Many have multiple sources of income. They drive Ubers. They have Etsy shops. They're selling used sneakers on eBay and working late shifts under the table at the local bar. They write programs. They work with data. They do it all! Are we taking all of these people into consideration when analyzing the 'job market?' Some of the 'over-employed' and really just underpaid and need the extra work to make ends meet, unfortunately. According to a new NerdWallet data, nearly two in five Americans are aiming to make more money this year and 10% have started a side business or second job just to cover basic necessities. In this increasingly complicated 'jobs' market perhaps it is time for economists to stop evaluating the labor market in terms of jobs. This is quickly becoming obsolete. We need to measure income. How many people over the age of 18 in the US are earning more than, say $50,000 per year, taking into consideration all sources of income and inflation-adjusted? What percentage is that compared to the working-age population? How has that increased or decreased over time? Isn't this more relevant than the numbers we're getting now? And shouldn't the numbers come from actual, real data and not from an unreliable Department of Labor survey that's revised 10 times after it is initially published? Can't we get this information from tax returns, social security and private sources such as Etsy, Amazon, eBay, ADP and Paychex? Can't this be calculated and updated monthly and annually? Of course it can. Major economic policy decisions still hinge on the unemployment rate and jobs growth. Politicians get re-elected or ejected on this data. But in a job market that's being shaken by AI, immigration and the rapid rise of side gigs, it's time we rethought how we measure the health of the labor market.
BBC News
2 days ago
- BBC News
Changed needed with Guernsey's revenue service
The current revenue service is "a difficult place for people to work", Guernsey's new chief executive of the States has Smillie said the service in charge of personal income tax was "clearly not performing well" or where the states would "like it to be at the moment".The department has been criticised for its lack of public trust and IT issues causing delayed tax returns being processed. Smillie said the staff, which were "on the frontline", worked hard "in the circumstances that they find themselves in". He said: "We need to equip those people to make sure they've got the right tools to do the job and they will do a cracking job. "They've got some great ideas, some brilliant initiatives and I'm absolutely sure if we empower them and give them the opportunity to change things and help themselves we'll see a dramatic improvement." Mr Smillie said although morale was "low", staff members were "optimistic" with the plans going into the said: "They really care about the service they provide, there's absolute acknowledgement it's not where it needs to be and they have lots of ideas."In terms of the systems that we have, the technology that we've deployed, it's just not working in a way that they need in order to provide a good service."The chief executive said change would take time and that it had to happen "from the bottom, up".He said: "The thing I'm really pleased about is we've got a group of people that are kind of really, really up for that and that's the kind of case study I'd like to create within the public services. "We've got a very good, difficult situation that we wouldn't necessarily want to be in but the advantage we've got to take from that is when we start to demonstrate change, it will be an example we continue to use to others."
