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.
THE RELIGIOUS ORDER that ran the Tuam mother and baby home where human remains have been found said it can make no comment on today’s announcement.
It did, however, reiterate its support for the Commission of Investigation into the home.
The Bon Secours sisters ran the home until it closed in 1961. All of the records for the home were given to Galway County Council at that time.
Today, it was confirmed that a “significant” amount of human remains were found on a site connected to the mother and baby home. The area had been flagged as a possible mass burial site by researcher Catherine Corless.
When asked for a statement on the issue, the nuns said:
The Bon Secours sisters are fully committed to the work of the Commission regarding the mother and baby home in Tuam. On the closing of the Home in 1961 all the records for the Home were returned to Galway County Council who are the owners and occupiers of the lands of the Home. We can therefore make no comment on today’s announcement, other than to confirm our continued cooperation with and support for the work of the Commission in seeking the truth about the home.
A Commission of Investigation was established by the Government to look into mother and baby homes and county homes.
Email row
In October 2014, an email was sent by the public relations representative for the Bon Secours sisters, Terry Prone, about the site.
Documentary maker Saskia Weber had asked the nuns to take part in filming about mother and baby homes in Ireland.
The high-profile PR representative said in response:
Your letter was sent on to me by the Provincial of the Irish Bon Secours congregation with instructions that I should help you. I’m not sure how I can. Let me explain.When the “O My God – mass grave in West of Ireland” broke in an English-owned paper (the Mail) it surprised the hell out of everybody, not least the Sisters of Bon Secours in Ireland, none of whom had ever worked in Tuam and most of whom had never heard of it.
If you come here, you’ll find no mass grave, no evidence that children were ever so buried, and a local police force casting their eyes to heaven and saying “Yeah, a few bones were found – but this was an area where Famine victims were buried. So?”
Several international TV stations have aborted their plans to make documentaries, because essentially all that can be said is “Ireland in the first half of the twentieth century was a moralistic, inward-looking, anti-feminist country of exagerrated religiousity.”
Which most of us knew already.The overwhelming majority of the surviving Sisters of Bon Secours in Ireland are over eighty. The handful (literally) still in active ministry are in their seventies. None of them is an historian or sociologist or theologian and so wouldn’t have the competence to be good on your programme.
If you’d like me to point you at a few reputable historians who might be good, I’ll certainly do that.
Terry Prone (Ms)
Chairman
The Communications Clinic
Speaking to TheJournal.ie at the time, Prone confirmed she had sent the email, but said there was “absolutely no difference” between the substance of it, and public pronouncements made by the Bon Secours sisters.
“The sisters never knew anything about it,” she added at the time.
Speaking today, Prone told Today with Sean O’Rourke on RTÉ about the site: ”It looks like there is a whole lot more to it”.
Prone said when she wrote to the producer she said ‘you won’t find that’, as a commission was needed to get the work done on the site to determine what happened.
She added that “nobody expected the kind of numbers that are being revealed today, clearly there was extensive burial. I am fascinated by the commission’s use of the phrase ‘in this way’ because it sounds like it was a disrespectful mass burial rather than a proper burial… I don’t know what to make of that”
She said questions that need to be asked are how many children were buried; and is that disproportionate to the number of children and toddlers who would have been dying in the population at this time; and what did they die of.
Documents show that the death rate of babies at the home was significantly higher than that at other homes around the country. Figures from the National Archives showed that 31.6% of babies under the age of one at Tuam died over the course of one year.
In other homes, that rate was 17%.
Causes of death included bronchitis, convulsions, and congenital syphilis.
What have they got to hide if nothing then why shouldn’t we know . I suspect that expenses must be high otherwise there wouldn’t be a problem.
@Keith: I am of the opinion that the presidency is an unnecessary expense that we don’t need in its present form. But apparently, the spending has come in under budget for the past couple of years.
@Dermot Lane: we don’t have the facts & if the case it’s under budget then why not show ? My point is something is been kept from us & shouldn’t .
@Keith: Except we do know. We know the cost, we just don’t get an itemised spreadsheet so people can go through it and focus on something they’ve determined isn’t “acceptable”.
What’s the point of this, so we can moan that our President travels in a way that you and I don’t? Well yeah, they’re the President and I’m essentially grand with that.
If you think a ceremonial Head of State is something our Country should have (and I do) then I’m fine with them having a Budget. And as they have stayed within that why the sudden urge to get a breakdown.
Yeah who benefits from this?
@Dermot Lane: the presidency is a necessary expense of our republic imo if you want a figurehead to represent our people in the wider world.
@Dermot Lane: just because it’s under budget means nothing. You could set a budget of 100 mil knowing you need 10 mil and hey presto your under budget by 90%.
@Dermot Lane: but if the budget was say 10 million and Mike spent 9,5million its not great,saying “coming under budget” makes it sound good. But we don’t know the budget it has been given
@Dermot Lane: The role of the president is vital to our democracy. It’s not just a figurehead or a representative of the country. The job of the president is function as the guardian of the constitution and to stop government from pushing through unconstitutional laws.
@Keith: its nothing to do with something to hide; its got to do with it becoming a political football. I suggest leave as it is. Government wasts huge money on silly mistakes every day and nothing is said.
@Keith: so you believe in national ID cards, fingerprints on file, DNA database, PSC? Nothing to hide not a problem (by the way I agree with them)
It doesn’t matter. Because nothing ever becomes of inquiries.
Yes and no. As customers of this country, we should be shown how our money is spent. The timing of it is wrong.
@Brendan Hughes: why is timing wrong ? I think it’s about right as presidential election looms let’s see how honest Michael d really is.
@Keith: You think Micheal D sits down and decides how to spend the Budget of the Aras…….
Right……
@Brendan Hughes: you’re a customer you are a citizen.
@Brendan Hughes: Agreed. I like transparency, but this is nakedly a political stunt to bring question marks over Higgins just before an election. An American style “October surprise” if you will, designed to create a ‘no smoke without fire’ dialog around presidential spending.
@Brendan Hughes: Yes Brendan, there must be a “right-time” to uncover wastage of taxpayers money!
Got a good laugh out of that!
@Brendan Hughes: Not customers, citizens, big difference.
@Brendan Hughes: It’s perfect timing. If it was in the middle of the presidency nothing would change regarding spending. People wouldn’t pay attention. Michael D took on loads of extra staff. He has 27 staff. Why? And giving some special allowances. It’s such a waste. Champagne socialism at it’s finest.
If it’s held back till after the election, then obviously, there is some thing to hide. A no win situation.
What’s the big deal in waiting a month? Who is pushing this? Who benefits from this? Would it perhaps be SF?
@John McG: correct me if I’m wrong but Sean Fleming (FF), who is chairperson of the PAC voted in favour of it – like some of the other members of FF he might be trying to push support to Sean Gallagher – totally wrong timing – it should not influence an election, theyve had 7 years to look at it and they decide the week before nominations close – same old cloak and dagger politics – and in case of any doubt by all means conduct your enquiry if spending is negligent – but wait until the election is done.
@John McG: no-one pushing it. But someone – Martin and FF is interfering and asking for PAC to delay it.
@John McG:
Or the 3 dragons
@John McG: For once can we have some accountability concerning the expences of politicians. El Presidente Higgins, has no problem in preaching for an end to poverty, a fair distribution of wealth… He said this on visit to South America. The man is very quiet concerning the poverty inflicted on the ordinary people of Ireland with the blessing of his own party. As James Connolly stated a paracite among paracites.
Not much point in having it when the election is over!
Not much having it when it’s over!
Why would you say no to this question?
FFG are against having, and surely they would have little to hide….
Cough ;-)
@Willy Mc Caul:
It’s being pushed by FF members of the Public Accounts Committee.
To help their mate Gallagher.
Some people are so clueless it’s laughable.
At least try to keep up on how FF are being sleveens this week.
@Brinster: Why government move to block? Yep, all the one, FFG…
WHY just the presidents office what about all the other departments and what about the quangoes , lets see who is being paid from these.,however now is not the right time as it would be very unfair to M d Higgins .leave it until after the election .
@Anthony Gallagher: How is it unfair? if there is nothing to hide great, if all is not as it should be why let it continue?
It is not the president himself that decides spending for the office. Trying to make him responsible is politically motivated and would lead to bullshit responses from other candidates that they would cut spending etc.
The office of the president has to be independant of the dail constitutionally
So he can ultimately challenge a law and refer it the council.
The pac seems to think it is above the constitution
What’s the harm, it’s a promised govt policy to be open and transparent. Lol
A total waste of space,this Micky mouse job
Yes. We don’t need a president. Waste of money.
@Stipe Miocic: We do need a president though because we are a republic, it comes with the territory.
It’s also part of our constitution. So yes, we do need one.
Change the system of government and constitution if you feel otherwise.
This is just an excuse for people to give out about the cost of having a President.
This is about so much more than the cost of the Presidency. This the continuing idea that people in politics should not be paid a decent wage.
I’m ALL for making it easier for people to get involved in Politics but there appears to be a serious leaning towards making Politics open only to those that are financially independent.
You WANT smart people that are perfectly capable of earning a great salary in the private sector to get involved in politics otherwise you’ll only ever end up with those that are independently wealthy. Basically it’ll be the landowning class all over again and you can bet your ass they won’t be social democrats.
@Tricia G: What? You think the Presidents salary is worth it? Politicians are over paid in this country as well. A quarter of TDs are landlords. Where the fk have you been living? Not in the real world by the looks of it.
@Ian Breathnach: Well done entirely missing the point, focusing on individuals and not the whole, ignoring my hope that we would make it easier for others to get into Politics and essentially being a turkey voting for Christmas.
@Tricia G: “they won’t be social democrats”
Well then thank god, keep the status quo.
People have a myriad of political opinions, just because you think yours is right doesn’t mean you have to pontificate to everyone else. The Presidency could be done by a retired politician or accredited person for a quarter of the money.
And a quarter is being generous.
@Ian Breathnach:
A 30 year old manager in a big 4 consulting firm, or a senior manager in any multinational will make more than a TD, and they’ll make it a lot younger with a degree and some hard work, and without going to 150 funerals and 20 functions a year.
Tricia’s point is 100% valid. In fact, plenty of left-leaning councillors have been making this point recently – that county councillors don’t get a living wage, making it next to impossible for ordinary working people to make time to be a councillor, instead leaving the council to business owners and landlords who can carve out the time.
For example: A manager or technical architect with 10-15 years experience in ICT would be taking a paycut if they became a ministerial advisor to Denis Naughton. Yet folks complain then about how slow the tendering process is, and the late delivery of broadband, whilst in the same breath complaining about the use of consultants, and how much TDs and support staff are paid.
@Rónán O’Suilleabháin: in my opinion, they can’t give a living wage because the money is not there.
We need to remember the country has a big national debt and experienced austerity measures.
Hard to justify decent salaries when the creation of wealth these councilors bring is not materializing.
@Hellenize Dublin: I wouldn’t call the living wage decent in cities, I’d call it basic subsistence in a city like Dublin. They could pay for it, along with a few thousand social houses around the country, but getting rid of the discounts on property tax most councils keep pushing.
Yes, and then a referendum on wether to abolish it, depending on the cost.
If we had a referendum on the Seanad, why not the presidency?
Its the publics money,so
A review should take place every year. We’ve a right to know how out hard earned money is spent.
Look why is there even a question about whether this is a legitimate area of public interest?
it`s self evident, it`s public money ergo PAC should do i`ts job, not pussyfooting and apologizing and procrastinating around the issue and treating MDH like he has suddenly become the Dalai Lama, or maybe the Dail(a) Lama, the spiritual as well as the political leader of the Irish nation or something akin.
Even the British royals are subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the UK , have been for years,for heavens sake, get on with it.
Shouldn’t all public money be accounted for, and itemized? If it is consistently under budget, I imagine the budget needs a review… I admit the timing is poor for MDH but it should always been available
The last thing this country needs is another enquiry ! Maybe we should have an enquiry into what why we have some many enquires !
Yes, I want to know how much is spent on caviar & Moet et Chandon.
Yes., absolutely… if there is nothing to hide what’s the big fuss about. Publish all and in detail.
In an ideal world? yeah absolutely. In Ireland? First we’d need a board of inquiry, and a committee to decide who gets to be on it, and a sub-committee to decides who will be on the committee to choose the board and a boatload of solicitors and judges and maybe even a barrister or two to ensure that it’s all “above board” (totally “not” chosen for their political affiliations because that would be cronyism) each and every one of them on ludicrous salaries and bottomless expense accounts provided on the taxpayers dime. Ten years and millions of euro later it will come out that, yes perhaps the costs were disproportionate and inappropriate to the office but Mr Higgins did nothing “technically” illegal, no one did so he can continue to collect his massive government pension and we’ll “take into account” the findings of the report in the future.
No it would only recommend a new jet
Yes because I think half of society would implode if they don’t have something to complain about.
They obviously have some dirt or something embarrassing to reveal. Just the usual dirty tricks of a Presidential campaign.
@prop joe: There should always be transparency with tax payers money. It’s only dirty tricks if it’s untrue.
Peter Casey has some interesting ideas on Presidental pay
@Nicholas Lynch: Indeed, and if every president had to re-distribute the pay, it would ensure that our president could only come from independently wealth stock.
Dragons forever. No thanks.
Until every poor homeless baby has a home their shouldn’t be any presidential spending or elections. They should sell the Phoenix Park, concrete over it and build a free house for everyone.
Sounds like someone is trying to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted.
The timing of this intervention by the PAC can’t be interpreted as anything other than political…
the substantive issue (spending related to the President’s) is worthy of exploration for sure – why for goodness sake,is it excluded from FOI obligations?) but on the eve of a presidential campaign – that is blatant politicking- anyone who believes otherwise is either politically naive, blind or partisan… I despair of our political system.
This has to be FFs doing
By all means let there be an enquirer after the presidential election. If the present President was not going up for re-election then it would be okay to carry out an enquirer. The election process should be on a level playing field and holding an enquirer in expenses does not make it so.
Why should we care if our president uses our taxes for a self-indulgent world tour of his leftie-leader idols or that we throw in a second BMW 740 for his (unelected) wife to indulge herself by scooting around to see her arty cronies. Any begrudgers ? – “let them eat cake”
Banana republic no transparency.
Abolish the office, absolutely a waste of money, does not mean a jot to most people, all the election coverage is ball locks
have your say