Hanafin wrong on Regina Coeli – mother and baby unit was inspected

A decision by Mary Hanafin, Minister for Education and Science, not to include the Regina Coeli Mother and Baby Unit on the Residential Institutions Redress Board list was based on inaccurate information.

A decision by Mary Hanafin, Minister for Education and Science, not to include the Regina Coeli Mother and Baby Unit on the Residential Institutions Redress Board list was based on inaccurate information.
Hanafin said that she cannot include the Regina Coeli Mother and Baby Unit on the list as there are no records of the State inspecting it or having a regulatory function. However, this has been contradicted by information received from the Department of Health and Children. According to the Department, the unit was first inspected in 1947, and the Department provided funding for the unit as far back as 1935.
As reported in Village magazine (15 December), Marie Therese O'Loughlin received burns as a baby, after falling into a fire whilst in the Regina Coeli Mother and Baby Unit, and is now asking for the unit to be included on the Residential Institutions Redress Board (RIRB) list. O'Loughlin has been protesting outside the Dail since October.
Mary Hanafin can add institutions to the list under section 4 of the 2002 act, which says: “The minister may by order provide for the insertion in the schedule of any industrial school, reformatory school orphanage, children's home... in which children were placed and resident in respect of which a public body has a regulatory or inspection function.”
So far, Hanafin has refused to add the Regina Coeli Mother and Baby Unit, based on the fact that she was told by the Department of Health and Children there were no inspection records for the unit.
In October, Mary Hanafin wrote a letter regarding Marie Therese's case to Senator Joe O'Toole, saying: “Officials at that Department (Health and Children) consulted files they held, which did not yield any records that suggested that any public body inspected or regulated this facility and as such it is not possible to include this facility on the schedule.”
Brian Lenihan, minister of state at the Department of Health and Children wrote to Marie Therese O'Loughlin on 23 August 2005 saying: “Section 4 of the Act states that a public body must have had a regulatory or inspection function in relation to the institution concerned for it to be considered in the inclusion. This Department has examined its records concerning the Regina Coeli Hostel and has found no evidence of such a function.”
In a response to questions submitted by Village the Department of Education and Science said it had provided funding for the services at the Regina Coeli Hostel as far back as 1935, and the first record of inspection was in 1947.
The Department said Brian Lenihan gave incorrect information due to a “confusion of references in relation to Regina Coeli, ‘Morning Star' and a ‘Morning Star Mother and Baby Home'”. They said the Minister was now happy to clarify the matter.
Village asked the Department of Education and Science if Mary Hanafin had a response to the new information regarding the inspection records; how was she not aware of the inspection records through her communication with the department; would she now consider adding it to list; and, if not, for what reason.
The Department replied: “As the redress scheme applies to industrial schools, reformatory schools and other such institutions for children where the State's duty of care arose from the fact that the children were separated from their families and were placed and resident in institutions over which the State had a regulatory or supervisory responsibility. “This situation did not apply in respect of homes or hostels for mothers and their babies.”
When asked again how the confusion over the inspection records arose, the Department said, “there was no confusion”.
The response given to Village is totally different to a reply Minister Hanafin gave in the Dáil on 14 December. She said: “I assure the House if there was evidence of the State having placed people in these institutions or of having an inspection role, I would have liked and wanted to have them included in the interests of the people who were abused in them, or who believe they were abused in them. The lack of evidence means there is nothing to indicate the State had that role as set out in the legislation.”
Emma Browne