Mother and Baby Homes History in Ireland

The Report is Published & Immediate Controversy #2

On the 12th day of January 2021, the long-awaited report of the Commission was published.

The report, which ran to over 4000, pages made a number of shocking findings of the infant mortality rate and vaccine trials. Sadly, many knew of these already.

Equally shocking was their finding that there was ‘little evidence of forced adoptions’ in the so-called homes.

To many, this ‘finding’ did nothing but insult the community, particularly the mothers, many of whom gave what they understood was evidence to the Commission about that very thing and which was entirely at odds with the report.

• Furthermore, the report was criticised for the use of language and how, in essence, society as a whole and their respective communities were blamed for failing young mothers/women by not supporting them through their pregnancies and beyond.
• This oversimplified conclusion entirely overlooked the failings of the State in not bringing inappropriate measures to support these young women. It failed to highlight that the State had become completely entwined with the religious orders, to the detriment of the Irish people.
• Understandably, this was seen by many as an attempt by the Commission to absolve the Religious Orders who received payment from the State to operate these institutions. It also appeared to absolve the State of any blame for facilitating the confinement of young women and girls when they were at their most vulnerable.
• Within days of its publication concerns began to be raised about how the conclusions regarding forced adoptions could have been reached. Given the fact that some 550 accounts, many of which addressed forced adoptions, had been given to the Commission.
• The accounts of these survivors did not appear to have been given any weight. The report in many ways, while painting these institutions as unsavory, otherwise tended to characterise them as being a sign of the times. This was insulting to many.
• Another significant concern was the fact that evidence given to the Commission appeared to be shoehorned into a set of questions that in fact were never asked.
• How the commission could have ever thought this was appropriate is not understood.  They have failed/refused to appear to answer questions about this time and again.
• The Commission did not consult with survivors prior to publishing the report which would have guaranteed certain rights under the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004.  Litigation is before the Courts on that in November.
• It was not until one of the Commission members delivered a talk in early June 2021 at Oxford University that the failings of the report became apparent. Astonishingly, Professor Daly essentially revealed that some 550 accounts given to the confidential committee were not incorporated into the report because of what Daly described as having not met ‘robust legal standards of evidence’.
• This left the commission with only 19 accounts having been given to it which would have met the Commissions self-imposed strict criteria surrounding the standard of evidence.
• This begs the question, did the Commission explain to people who appeared before the confidential committee that their evidence would not be used in the report? According to many, this was not explained. Most thought that it would only mean their names would not be included.
• Surely the commission should have raised concerns with the government at the time if they felt that the terms of reference were restricting their ability to make findings and determinations. It seems from reading Professor Daly’s comments that fear of litigation from the religious orders hampered their work and they decided at some point to place a self-imposed high threshold on the legal standards of proof.
• They decided not to reflect in the report any evidence given to it by survivors where they were not subjected to cross-examination. This decision was significant and one that the author cannot agree with.
• A lower burden of proof should have been set per the terms of reference, whereby even confidential evidence given to it could have been given its rightful place in the report.
• The Commission tied their own hands much to the anguish of the 550 people who appeared before it and were not properly listened to.
• What happens next is unclear.  What is clear is that the report cannot be simply left to stand as it is. The author believes permission should be sought to allow a new panel to review the 550 accounts and the report is amended to reflect these accounts.

To speak with one of our mother and baby homes redress solicitors, call (Free Phone) 1800 844 104 or complete our online enquiry form.