More than 100 MPs sign open letter backing Philomena's Law
More than 100 MPs and Peers in Westminster have signed an open letter backing legislation to help UK based survivors of Irish mother-and-baby homes access compensation.
It comes ahead of the first Westminster debate on 'Philomena's Law' this afternoon.
The legislation has been named after Philomena Lee, a mother and baby home survivor, whose story about her son being forcibly adopted was chronicled in the Oscar nominated film "Philomena".
It's estimated that around 13,000 people living in the UK are mother and baby home survivors, however many risk losing their means-tested benefits if they avail of compensation under the Irish Mother and Baby Institution payments scheme.
"Philomena's Law" was first introduced to the House of Commons by the chair of the UK Labour Party's Irish Society, Liam Conlon MP.
"Our campaign has also been about shining a light on the Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme itself. Uptake is incredibly low in Britain and we want to ensure that every eligible survivor knows about it and feels empowered to apply", he explained.
The actor Steve Coogan, who starred in the film 'Philomena' has also expressed his support for the legislation.
"Liam is doing fantastic work to raise awareness of this important issue and I'm backing 'Philomena's Law' to help him ensure that all survivors get the compensation they are rightfully due", he said.
Irish actor and star of Derry Girls Siobhán McSweeney said that she "wholeheartedly" supports Philomena's Law, adding that "this legislation is a crucial step towards justice and dignity for those who have suffered in silence for far too long."
The open letter has been signed by politicians from a number of parties, including Labour, DUP, UUP, SDLP, SNP, Sinn Féin, Liberal Democrats and Alliance.
It states that: "This complicated and stressful situation is putting undue pressure on survivors who are currently making applications to the payment scheme, forcing them to revisit their most traumatic experiences as they weigh up the cost of accepting compensation."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Examiner
3 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
Fergus Finlay: Let's restore people's dignity by going back to the Constitution
What are my fundamental obligations as a citizen of Ireland? The Constitution spells out two, in Article 9, and it uses the word fundamental to describe them. I must be faithful to the nation and loyal to the State. In addition, if I am a parent, I have some additional duties in relation to the welfare and education of my children. None of that seems unreasonable to me. I'm proud of being Irish, never wanted to live anywhere else, always wanted to ensure that my children and their children had the same sense of pride as I have. But I've always wondered why the drafters of our Constitution never thought that the country might have the occasional duty to its citizens and all the people who live here. This is exclusive subscriber content. Already a subscriber? Sign in Subscribe to access all of the Irish Examiner. Annual €120€60 Best value Monthly €10€4 / month Unlimited access. Subscriber content. Daily ePaper. Additional benefits.
Irish Examiner
3 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
Government can't replace triple lock with vague criteria for deploying our troops
In the pipeline for over two years, the Government has finally published the general scheme for its proposed end to the triple lock. This 'heads of Bill' sets out the key provisions that will govern future deployment overseas of Irish troops. The process has hardly been rushed. The fact that the draft law has technical provisions covering arrangements for pre-1993 and Reserve Force members shows the department and Defence Forces have thought through the consequences of the changes. What is far less clear is the political thinking behind it. Two years after Taoiseach Micheál Martin's 2023 Consultative Forum on International Security Policy, there is little sign of any big political analysis in what will be a fundamental shift in how we decide peacekeeping and military engagement. The push to reform the triple lock — which requires Government and Dáil approval, plus a UN mandate before deploying more than 12 Defence Forces personnel overseas — rests on the reality that the UN Security Council has not approved a new peacekeeping mission since 2014. Retaining legislation that does not recognise this stark fact of UN politics is empty symbolism. While the 'Triple Lock' phrase is a recent construct, the law that underpins it is the Defence (Amendment) (No.2) Act 1960. It enshrined the core principle of a UN mandate. As did its later updates in 1993 and 2006, each update taking account of evolving circumstances. Introducing the 1960 Act in the Dáil, An Taoiseach Seán Lemass said, '…it is not only our moral duty but in our national interests to support the growth of the influence and power of the United Nations.' While the language may be a tad outdated, it describes a principled stance, grounded in national interest. One that still applies. Vague criteria I do not believe this government wants to abandon multilateralism. But the text it has produced suggests that neither an Taoiseach nor Tánaiste have given proper political thought to the impact of removing direct references to UN authority from our law. Citing Russia vetoes may make a good put-down in a terse discussion, but policy making by punchline is not good government. The criteria that replace the third element of the triple lock are vague. Head 6 cites 'principles of the United Nations Charter' and 'conformity with the principles of justice and international law.' Both are honourable principles but the heads of bill, as drafted, would effectively leave it to the government of the day to decide if the criteria were met. There is no reference to specific UN or OSCE resolutions. There is no requirement that missions be mandated by such resolutions. In effect, the opinion of the government of the day would replace a specific UN mandate. Removing the UN mandate requirement without robust, transparent criteria is a mistake. It risks eroding public trust in the legitimacy of and integrity of the process of sending troops on overseas missions. The public does not distinguish between peace support deployments to Lebanon or Congo, which were both UN-led, or to Kosovo or Bosnia which were Nato-led, or to Chad, which was EU-led. Regardless of who leads or runs a mission, the public views them all as UN-mandated missions. Peacekeeping deployments that were all in pursuance of UN resolutions. These missions also had widescale cross-party Dáil support. Replacing an explicit multilateral mandate with a politically subjective text risks politicising the process. We do not want future deployments decided by tight Dáil votes, where partisan, government versus opposition, considerations dominate. This would undermine public confidence. We should not squander such a valuable trust. Solution I understand what the Government is trying to achieve, but it is doing it the wrong way. Meanwhile, the total Opposition approach from across the Dáil floor, is just as flawed. Cross-party consensus is the way forward. And despite the rhetoric, it is within our grasp. We can create a new law that addresses current realities without undermining public support for future deployments. Instead of pushing through its proposals as outlined, the Government should invite Opposition amendments that clarify deployment criteria. Criteria and tests that better express our commitment to multilateralism. In return, the Opposition must accept that the 1960 Act needs reform and draft criteria that both recognise that the UN Security Council has not established a new mission since 2014 and reaffirm our national commitment to multilateralism. Playing party politics with this reform risks politicising future deployments. We spend too little political time discussing national defence and security. Wouldn't it be better to use what time we do make available, to addressing our massive defence shortfalls, especially as our Air Corps and Naval service struggle today to offer even the barest cover? We need a Defence Forces capable of meeting Ireland's obligations at home and also abroad. We need a principled multilateral framework for overseas deployments that commands public trust. That is the challenge facing us. With political direction and leadership from across the Dáil, we can have both.
Irish Examiner
3 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
'Poor budgeting' has Government spending money faster than planned, says watchdog
The Government is spending money much faster this year than was planned, with Ireland's fiscal watchdog blaming poor budgeting. In an assessment of the State's financial health, the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council (IFAC) said spending has increased by 6% so far this year, well above the 1.4% implied by Budget 2025. IFAC said the rapid spending is because earlier overruns were not properly built into the forecasts, and Government estimates were 'simply not credible'. The exchequer returns for May, published last week, show spending of €37.3bn to the end of May — €2.1bn (5.9%) above the same period last year. 'This pace far exceeds the growth rate that would be consistent with Budget 2025 forecasts, given the final level of spending in 2024,' IFAC said, adding that the overruns are in most areas of spending, not just health. Presenting the returns last week, Jack Chambers, the public expenditure minister, said the increases were in line with the amount profiled by departments to be spent at this stage in the year. IFAC said the Irish economy is in a strong position, but it warned of growing risks, saying that tariffs and trade tensions are a threat to investment and exports, and only 'phenomenal levels' of excess corporation tax are keeping Ireland in surplus. 'Without these revenues, there would be a substantial deficit, despite a strong economy,' IFAC said. 'Without these factors, there is a structural deficit of 2.4% of GNI — equivalent to €2,500 per worker. "In the short term, corporation tax is likely to grow further. However, these receipts remain high risk. A handful of large US firms pay most of the corporation tax IFAC also raised concerns about Ireland's fiscal rules, saying the framework is not effective and that EU budgeting rules will not help as they rely on GDP and ignore the risks from volatile corporation-tax receipts. 'The reality is that both the new EU fiscal rules and their mirror in domestic legislation no longer provide any credible constraint for Ireland,' IFAC said, adding that the Government appears to have abandoned the national spending rule introduced by the last government, which set a 5% limit for net spending growth. Extra stimulus Regarding Budget 2026, IFAC said the Government should adapt its approach to the state of the economy. 'If the economy stays strong, there's no need for extra stimulus,' the council stated. 'In that case, budgetary policy should show some restraint. But if the economy takes a downturn, budgetary policy should provide support.' IFAC said the Government should commit to a fiscal rule, use budgetary policy to reduce the ups and downs of the economic cycle, focus on infrastructure and competitiveness, and set realistic spending forecasts. Recent forecasts have ignored previous overruns and been unrealistic. IFAC's chairman Séamus Coffey said: 'The Irish economy is in a strong position going into a period of uncertainty. The Government needs to ensure that budgetary policy reduces the ups and downs of the economy. Introducing a rule would help guide fiscal policy in the coming years.' Read More David McNamara: ECB ready to take a pause on rate cuts
