Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
HOW MUCH REDRESS should a person who spent less than six months in a mother and baby home as a child get?
How many Commissioners will appear before the Oireachtas?
How many official reports with disputed findings should be repudiated?
How many independent reviews will take place?
The answer to all these questions is none, evidently.
An image of a newborn baby is projected onto Sean Ross Abbey, in Roscrea in County Tipperary, as part of the Herstory Light Show in February 2021. PA Images
PA Images
The Commission of Investigation into Mother and Baby Homes published its final report on 12 January 2021 – almost six years after the inquiry was established.
Tens of thousands of pregnant women and girls were sent to these institutions throughout the 20th century. Their children were generally adopted or sent to industrial schools – at times without their mother’s consent.
Mother and baby homes existed in many countries but the proportion of unmarried mothers sent to institutions in Ireland is believed to have been the highest in the world.
Survivors had hoped the Commission would finally shed light on how and why these institutions existed, and detail the personal trauma many of them experienced. Instead, much of their evidence was dismissed and labelled ‘contaminated’ or ‘unreliable’.
As soon as the report was published, there was confusion and outrage over many of its conclusions.
The Commission said it found little evidence of issues such as forced adoption, forced incarceration and discrimination – despite personal testimony that detailed exactly that. Not all adoptions were forced or illegal, of course, but many were.
The Commission heard people’s testimonies via two Committees: the Investigation Committee and the Confidential Committee. Crucially, the vast majority of the personal testimony gathered by the Commission was given via the latter.
It later transpired that testimony from the Confidential Committee was not given the same weight as evidence gathered by the Investigation Committee because it was not delivered under oath and not given the opportunity to be legally tested.
Many survivors thought the Confidential Committee was the only way to give evidence. When they applied to take part in the Commission, they said they were directed to this committee and did not know that another committee even existed.
Some witnesses did know there were two different committees, but believed that their evidence would be given the same weight – regardless of which committee they spoke to.
Many people only realised this was not the case after the report was published – and when it was too late to do anything about it.
At the start of the Confidential Committee section of the report, the Commission says it “has no doubt that the witnesses recounted their experiences as honestly as possible”.
“However, the Commission does have concerns about the contamination of some evidence. A number of witnesses gave evidence that was clearly incorrect. This contamination probably occurred because of meetings with other residents and inaccurate media coverage,” it states.
By making a sweeping statement like this – rather than highlighting certain concerns it had – the Commission cast doubt over the integrity of the entirety of the evidence given to the Confidential Committee.
Survivors felt infantilised and insulted all over again. The anger and hurt was palpable.
Minister Roderic O'Gorman speaking to the Children's Committee on Tuesday Oireachtas.ie
Oireachtas.ie
In the 21 months since the report came out, there have been repeated calls for it to be rejected by the Government so it does not stand as the official record of what happened in these institutions.
The Government is against this approach and, in June 2021, a different path was suggested by Children’s Minister Roderic O’Gorman.
He said the testimony given by over 500 survivors to the Confidential Committee would be reviewed by an international human rights expert. Many campaigners didn’t think this went far enough, but viewed it as a step in the right direction.
In the succeeding months, when asked how the review was coming together, the minister’s answers became increasingly vague.
Review scrapped
Ultimately, in response to an inquiry from the Irish Examiner, the Department of Children confirmed in August 2022 that the review had been quietly scrapped.
Little reason for the u-turn was given. And, yet again, survivors found out important details about the Government’s plans – or lack thereof – in the media.
All this unfolded during the Dáil’s summer recess. So, TDs and senators only got a chance to grill O’Gorman on the topic last Tuesday when he appeared before the Oireachtas Children’s Committee.
In his opening statement, O’Gorman said that “significant legal complexities would arise in seeking to facilitate an external review of accounts provided privately and in confidence within the robust legal framework of a Commission of Investigation”.
Advertisement
The minister continued: “Government cannot, via a non-statutory process, retrospectively alter or interrogate the independent Commission’s findings or methodology. We must be upfront in relation to such complexities. This does not prevent human rights experts, or others, from further analysis of these matters.”
In response to these comments, Social Democrats TD Holly Cairns asked, if the Government cannot interrogate or alter the inquiry’s findings in a non-statutory way, would it consider doing so in a statutory way?
O’Gorman said the Government’s planned response – to develop a national research and remembrance centre in which some survivors’ testimony will be preserved and made public – amounts to them “proceeding in a statutory way” as this proposal “will need to be based in statute”.
When asked for further clarity, a spokesperson for the Department of Children told The Journal this initiative “will allow the lived experiences of survivors and former residents to be recorded in their own words and stand as part of our national record of these institutions”.
“The process will be underpinned by statute and operate on a voluntary basis, with personal accounts received and utilised with the consent of participants.
“This initiative will enable human rights experts, academics and others to conduct further independent studies informed directly by the experiences of those who spent time in these institutions.”
Cairns says "picking one thing that is important" to survivors (remembrance centre) but ignoring other things they want - such as the review - makes no sense.
She says the COI's findings were "fundamentally flawed" and have a knock-on effect on redress.
Cairns and other committee members once again asked if the Government would consider repudiating the Commission’s final report. O’Gorman was quick to nip this idea in the bud.
The minister said: “If this Government takes a decision to repudiate a report that is disagreed with, what will happen when a Commission of Investigation report is undertaken, criticises a future Government and that Government decides to repudiate that report?
“The Deputy may disagree with me on this point but a decision by a Government to repudiate an independent Commission of Investigation report has serious consequences that may be unforeseen.
“There are undoubtedly legitimate criticisms of elements of the Commission’s report. There is also material of considerable value in that report. It is clearly documented and evidenced in the report that the State knew what was happening in these institutions and failed to act.
“Inspectors from the Department with responsibility for local government were writing reports stating that children in these institutions were not being properly fed, and that children and mothers were dying. That was ignored by officialdom. I do not want those findings repudiated.
“That is an important element of the findings. That is on the specific issue of this report. There is also a broader issue about a Government making a determination to repudiate an independent report and the precedent that would set.”
Cairns acknowledged there would indeed be consequences to repudiating – or not repudiating – the report.
“I fully understand what the minister means about that. It is, however, important for us to acknowledge here today that there are consequences for not repudiating a report that has incorrect findings and which did not even produce any kind of methodology into how it came about those findings,” she said.
High Court cases
It could be argued that the Government, in fact, already has rejected certain sections of the Commission’s report on foot of a judicial review last year.
After the Commission itself dissolved in February 2021, eight women took legal action against the State over how the Commission operated and the conclusions it came to. Two women were used as test cases in the High Court: well known survivors Mary Harney and Philomena Lee (whose life story was made into a film starring Judi Dench in 2013, Philomena).
The women’s legal teams argued that both of them were identifiable in the Commission’s final report and, as such, they should have been given the chance to read the sections related to them in advance of publication. This did not happen and, as a result, the women said inaccuracies about their testimony were included in the report.
Philomena Lee and Dame Judi Dench, who played her in a film, at the London Film Festival in 2013 Alamy Stock Photo
Alamy Stock Photo
In December 2021, the State acknowledged the women’s rights were indeed breached when they were not allowed to correct the inaccuracies prior to publication. This was a significant victory for survivors.
As part of the settlement reached between the women and the Government, a statement acknowledging this breach of rights was published alongside the final report. It notes that some survivors do not accept elements of the report as “a true and full reflection” of the evidence they gave.
During Tuesday’s debate, Cairns asked O’Gorman if the Government would, or could, add further amendments to the report.
Referencing the outcome of the judicial review in the High Court, Cairns said: “There is a mechanism for survivors to get an amendment to it. Is there a mechanism for the Minister to do that?”
O’Gorman replied: “Not that I am aware of.”
Cairns pushed O’Gorman on why a statement could be published alongside the report detailing survivors’ issues with it, but he as minister could not do the same.
O’Gorman replied: “That option is only open to them because they are identifiable in the report. It is not open to a Minister of the Government because that route, in terms of being identifiable, does not exist in that situation.”
Cairns: “Is it possible there could be another reason other than being identifiable, for example that the findings of the report would be factually incorrect?”
O’Gorman: “No.”
Cairns: “The only way to get it is if a person is identifiable in the report?”
O’Gorman: “That is my understanding, yes.”
There was confusion in the committee room as to how this could be the case, and a number of legal experts have since questioned whether or not O’Gorman’s comments are accurate.
The Journal asked the Department of Children to clarify what legally underpins O’Gorman’s reasoning on this point.
Related Reads
Mixed-raced people had 'childhood stolen' in Irish institutions & redress must be extended, UN says
'100 years of injustice': Survivors call for mother and baby home redress scheme to be extended
'This isn't justice': Relatives criticise fact Bessborough site won't be excavated like Tuam
A spokesperson told us the judicial review cases in 2021 “were procedural in nature with the applicants arguing that they were identifiable in the report and therefore entitled to a draft of the relevant part of the report, prior to its publication”.
The spokesperson continued: “In light of the evidence on identity provided by the applicants in these cases, the State consented to a declaration and agreed to publish a written statement identifying key paragraphs of concern to the applicants in these cases.
“The minister was not a witness to the Commission and could not bring proceedings on this basis.”
Mary Harney, one of the women who successfully took legal action in the High Court, was watching Tuesday’s debate unfold online. She was very angry afterwards, telling The Journal: “I am spitting teeth. O’Gorman once more has his cloth ears on.”
She also accused the minister of “totally ignoring” the fact that the UN Human Rights Committee and other experts have called for a human rights based investigation into what happened in these institutions.
Mary Harney, who was born in Bessborough mother and baby home before being sent to an industrial school in Cork Mary Harney
Mary Harney
It should also be noted that a number of other human rights experts have criticised the Government’s response to the “systemic racism” faced by mixed-race people who passed through State and religious-run institutions between the 1940s and 1990s.
As revealed by The Journal last month, these experts believe the Government has not sufficiently addressed this issue, and that its planned redress scheme is inadequate.
The Government has been at pains to stress that its redress scheme, in some ways, goes above and beyond what the Commission recommended. It does however base the amount of compensation on a person’s length of stay in an institution – an approach most survivors did not want.
As it stands, many mothers who spent time in an institution are entitled to receive as little as €5,000, while people who were boarded out (a precursor to fostering) or spent less than six months in an institution as a child are excluded from the scheme.
Confusion and contradiction
In the last two years many questions have been asked about how the Commission operated and came to the conclusions it did. The people best placed to answer these questions are the three commissioners – but we’ve heard very little from them.
They have not spoken publicly about their work, bar one notable exception. Professor Mary Daly spoke about the Commission at an online event organised by Oxford University in June 2021.
During this talk, Professor Daly acknowledged that testimony from the Confidential Committee was not given the same weight as evidence gathered by the Investigation Committee as it was not delivered under oath.
She said the Commission had to be “ultra careful” in terms of what it published due to the “looming” threat of legal challenges from religious orders.
“If we wrote something that was averse or critical about an individual or an entity, an institution, we had to write a draft report, send them that draft report where we made these critical observations and supply them with the accompanying documentation. And they had a chance to read that, and they had a chance to come back.”
It was actually in response to Daly’s comments that O’Gorman proposed the independent review in the first place.
That same month, Daly and the other commissioners turned down a request to appear before the Oireachtas Children’s Committee. In a letter sent to the Committee at the time, Justice Yvonne Murphy said Daly’s comments had been taken out of context.
Murphy said it was not true that some women’s testimonies were “discarded”. She also denied that any religious orders had threatened to pursue judicial reviews.
Still, the evidence given by religious orders was seemingly taken at face value by the Commission. Some organisations were also given the chance to read sections of the report related to them and respond to certain claims.
This same courtesy was not afforded to survivors like Harney and Lee.
Significant consequences either way
Just 64 people gave evidence to the Investigation Committee, whereas 550 people (mostly survivors) gave evidence via the Confidential Committee.
Only 19 people who applied directly to give evidence to the Investigation Committee were successful, and it’s not clear how the other witnesses were chosen.
If more survivors knew there were two different committees, a larger number of them would likely have attended the Investigation Committee – potentially resulting in a report containing very different findings.
During Tuesday’s committee hearing, Senator Tom Clonan said we must learn from how poorly the State has treated survivors of mother and baby homes and other institutions over the last century.
If we don’t, we’re “doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over again” in terms of how we treat vulnerable people, Clonan told O’Gorman.
He added that the State response to date could have “a chilling effect” on the willingness of people to come forward and share their lived experiences in a way that helps Ireland understand our history and “how we got to where we are”.
Many survivors are now speaking out – about what happened to them and what needs to happen next – but are we actually listening? Or do we have cloth ears on?
Some consequences – like some testimonies – are more important than others, evidently.
Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone...
A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article.
Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.
Discovery of human hand in yard of Dublin primary school not thought to be malicious
Updated
42 mins ago
32.7k
Julia Wandel
Woman who has claimed to be missing Madeleine McCann is charged with stalking McCann family
Updated
33 mins ago
16.8k
Met Éireann
Status Yellow wind warning for 10 counties tomorrow as stormy conditions expected
Updated
20 Feb
63.4k
46
Your Cookies. Your Choice.
Cookies help provide our news service while also enabling the advertising needed to fund this work.
We categorise cookies as Necessary, Performance (used to analyse the site performance) and Targeting (used to target advertising which helps us keep this service free).
We and our 152 partners store and access personal data, like browsing data or unique identifiers, on your device. Selecting Accept All enables tracking technologies to support the purposes shown under we and our partners process data to provide. If trackers are disabled, some content and ads you see may not be as relevant to you. You can resurface this menu to change your choices or withdraw consent at any time by clicking the Cookie Preferences link on the bottom of the webpage .Your choices will have effect within our Website. For more details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
We and our vendors process data for the following purposes:
Use precise geolocation data. Actively scan device characteristics for identification. Store and/or access information on a device. Personalised advertising and content, advertising and content measurement, audience research and services development.
Cookies Preference Centre
We process your data to deliver content or advertisements and measure the delivery of such content or advertisements to extract insights about our website. We share this information with our partners on the basis of consent. You may exercise your right to consent, based on a specific purpose below or at a partner level in the link under each purpose. Some vendors may process your data based on their legitimate interests, which does not require your consent. You cannot object to tracking technologies placed to ensure security, prevent fraud, fix errors, or deliver and present advertising and content, and precise geolocation data and active scanning of device characteristics for identification may be used to support this purpose. This exception does not apply to targeted advertising. These choices will be signaled to our vendors participating in the Transparency and Consent Framework.
Manage Consent Preferences
Necessary Cookies
Always Active
These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work.
Targeting Cookies
These cookies may be set through our site by our advertising partners. They may be used by those companies to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites. They do not store directly personal information, but are based on uniquely identifying your browser and internet device. If you do not allow these cookies, you will experience less targeted advertising.
Functional Cookies
These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalisation. They may be set by us or by third party providers whose services we have added to our pages. If you do not allow these cookies then these services may not function properly.
Performance Cookies
These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not be able to monitor our performance.
Store and/or access information on a device 104 partners can use this purpose
Cookies, device or similar online identifiers (e.g. login-based identifiers, randomly assigned identifiers, network based identifiers) together with other information (e.g. browser type and information, language, screen size, supported technologies etc.) can be stored or read on your device to recognise it each time it connects to an app or to a website, for one or several of the purposes presented here.
Personalised advertising and content, advertising and content measurement, audience research and services development 136 partners can use this purpose
Use limited data to select advertising 106 partners can use this purpose
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times an ad is presented to you).
Create profiles for personalised advertising 78 partners can use this purpose
Information about your activity on this service (such as forms you submit, content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (for example, information from your previous activity on this service and other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (that might include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present advertising that appears more relevant based on your possible interests by this and other entities.
Use profiles to select personalised advertising 77 partners can use this purpose
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on your advertising profiles, which can reflect your activity on this service or other websites or apps (like the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects.
Create profiles to personalise content 37 partners can use this purpose
Information about your activity on this service (for instance, forms you submit, non-advertising content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (such as your previous activity on this service or other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (which might for example include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present content that appears more relevant based on your possible interests, such as by adapting the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find content that matches your interests.
Use profiles to select personalised content 33 partners can use this purpose
Content presented to you on this service can be based on your content personalisation profiles, which can reflect your activity on this or other services (for instance, the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects. This can for example be used to adapt the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find (non-advertising) content that matches your interests.
Measure advertising performance 127 partners can use this purpose
Information regarding which advertising is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine how well an advert has worked for you or other users and whether the goals of the advertising were reached. For instance, whether you saw an ad, whether you clicked on it, whether it led you to buy a product or visit a website, etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of advertising campaigns.
Measure content performance 60 partners can use this purpose
Information regarding which content is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine whether the (non-advertising) content e.g. reached its intended audience and matched your interests. For instance, whether you read an article, watch a video, listen to a podcast or look at a product description, how long you spent on this service and the web pages you visit etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of (non-advertising) content that is shown to you.
Understand audiences through statistics or combinations of data from different sources 75 partners can use this purpose
Reports can be generated based on the combination of data sets (like user profiles, statistics, market research, analytics data) regarding your interactions and those of other users with advertising or (non-advertising) content to identify common characteristics (for instance, to determine which target audiences are more receptive to an ad campaign or to certain contents).
Develop and improve services 82 partners can use this purpose
Information about your activity on this service, such as your interaction with ads or content, can be very helpful to improve products and services and to build new products and services based on user interactions, the type of audience, etc. This specific purpose does not include the development or improvement of user profiles and identifiers.
Use limited data to select content 38 partners can use this purpose
Content presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type, or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times a video or an article is presented to you).
Use precise geolocation data 43 partners can use this special feature
With your acceptance, your precise location (within a radius of less than 500 metres) may be used in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Actively scan device characteristics for identification 25 partners can use this special feature
With your acceptance, certain characteristics specific to your device might be requested and used to distinguish it from other devices (such as the installed fonts or plugins, the resolution of your screen) in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Ensure security, prevent and detect fraud, and fix errors 86 partners can use this special purpose
Always Active
Your data can be used to monitor for and prevent unusual and possibly fraudulent activity (for example, regarding advertising, ad clicks by bots), and ensure systems and processes work properly and securely. It can also be used to correct any problems you, the publisher or the advertiser may encounter in the delivery of content and ads and in your interaction with them.
Deliver and present advertising and content 96 partners can use this special purpose
Always Active
Certain information (like an IP address or device capabilities) is used to ensure the technical compatibility of the content or advertising, and to facilitate the transmission of the content or ad to your device.
Match and combine data from other data sources 68 partners can use this feature
Always Active
Information about your activity on this service may be matched and combined with other information relating to you and originating from various sources (for instance your activity on a separate online service, your use of a loyalty card in-store, or your answers to a survey), in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Link different devices 50 partners can use this feature
Always Active
In support of the purposes explained in this notice, your device might be considered as likely linked to other devices that belong to you or your household (for instance because you are logged in to the same service on both your phone and your computer, or because you may use the same Internet connection on both devices).
Identify devices based on information transmitted automatically 84 partners can use this feature
Always Active
Your device might be distinguished from other devices based on information it automatically sends when accessing the Internet (for instance, the IP address of your Internet connection or the type of browser you are using) in support of the purposes exposed in this notice.
Save and communicate privacy choices 64 partners can use this special purpose
Always Active
The choices you make regarding the purposes and entities listed in this notice are saved and made available to those entities in the form of digital signals (such as a string of characters). This is necessary in order to enable both this service and those entities to respect such choices.
have your say