In the aftermath of the publication of the long-awaited report of the Commission of Investigation into Mother and Baby Homes, as questions mounted from survivors and politicians, the Government found itself increasingly in the firing line.
The Opposition was demanding answers about deleted recordings of survivors’ testimonies, something which was particularly relevant given some women did not believe their stories were adequately reflected in the final report or findings.
In the Dáil, Tánaiste Leo Varadkar said “one of the flaws in the process is an independent body like a commission can spend five years hearing evidence, examining evidence and making its report, but then it is not there to explain it.
“One is left, as a Government Minister, trying to explain a report that one had no role in actually drawing up.”
Despite the gravity of the issues in question, the commission chose not to go before the Oireachtas Committee on Children or hold a press conference at that time.
That reticence lasted all the way until Wednesday, June 2nd, when a member of the commission, Prof Mary Daly, attended an Oxford University academic webinar.
Pent-up concerns
While campaigners like Maeve O’Rourke have welcomed her decision to speak about the workings of the commission, it was the choice of forum that upset many in the first instance.
Given all the pent-up concerns, there was surprise, to say the least, that Daly chose to make her first public remarks in a closed event with her peers.
While the organisers said they admitted anyone who registered before the cut-off time, most people would not have been aware the event was happening.
Furthermore, every person who attended virtually was muted and could only submit questions in a chat function, which may or may not be asked.
The image of dozens of muted women on small screens, eager for any information that might be shared, was disquieting.
The second important aspect is, of course, what Daly revealed in her contributions during the event.
The key issues are around how the women’s testimonies to the confidential committee were used, and to what extent they influenced the main report and its findings.
Findings challenged
This matters because many campaigners have challenged key findings including assertions there was no evidence that women were forced to enter the homes or little evidence that children were forcibly taken from their mothers.
Daly said that to integrate the confidential inquiry into the report would have “taken a lot of additional time” and interrogation.
These comments have compounded survivors’ fears that their testimony was not fully taken into account in the findings.
Questions around the role of the confidential committee are not new either.
In 2016, the legal firm providing pro-bono assistance to potential witnesses wrote to the commission and said some people who went to the confidential committee “seem to have absolutely no idea about the difference between giving evidence to the confidential committee and giving evidence to the main investigation committee, or indeed the fact that there are two options open to them.”
This, they warned, was a major deficiency.
Given the fact that Daly said it was “not wise” to run the two aspects of the commission alongside each other at the same, questions will be asked about whether or not the process was flawed from the start.
The pressure is on politically, too.
Taoiseach Micheál Martin previously described the report as the “definitive account” of what happened to these women. Yet there is a growing acceptance this report will not be the final word in light of all that has emerged and has yet to emerge, and the calls for clarity will certainly only get louder.