Who is popular today?

Members of the Commission of Investigation into Mother and Baby Homes should “do the right thing” and appear before the Oireachtas and talk directly to survivors, Tánaiste Leo Varadkar has said.
Speaking after one of the members addressed an Oxford University seminar on Wednesday, Mr Varadkar said he could see “no excuse, and certainly no valid reason” for the members not to be willing to do that.
“It behoves the members of the commission to do the right thing, to speak to the Oireachtas, to speak to survivors, to explain the reports and then their findings,” he said, adding that any reasonable questions should be answered in a non-adversarial way.
Mr Varakdar was responding to Labour leader Alan Kelly who raised the issue in the Dáil after one of the authors of the commission’s report, Prof Mary Daly, told the online seminar that the commission was limited in what it could do because of the terms of reference.
None of the commission members have gone before the Oireachtas or given a press conference following the publication of the lengthy report in Janaury.
Commission chair Ms Justice Yvonne Murphy declined a previous invitation from the Oireachtas Committee on Children to discuss the report, which was published in January and has been the subject of criticism from survivors and advocacy groups over its tone, content and how it handled testimony and records related to its work.
Discounted testimony
Prof Daly told the Oxford seminar that the evidence of more than 500 survivors to a confidential committee was discounted because the report had to meet robust legal standards of evidence and the report “reads as realistic”.
Mr Kelly asked the Tánaiste if he accepted that the report should “be repudiated” and claime “ it needs to be done again”.
He said the construction of the commission “was fundamentally flawed from the beginning, limiting the quality, comprehensiveness and accuracy of the report”.
Mr Varadkar said the Government decided that “we should carry out an investigation into what happens and we, together, agreed terms of reference for that commission” which has since reported.
“But I think what happened after that wasn’t acceptable in my mind. Essentially the report was left on our desks, and the commission members did not engage with the Oireachtas to explain the report, to tell us how they came to the findings they did, or to answer any questions. And I think that was not the correct course of action on the part of the commission members,” he said.
“And that has been compounded by the fact that one of the commission members felt it appropriate to do exactly that, in an academic seminar. I think that was disrespectful to the Oireachtas, I think was disrespectful in particular to the survivors and their advocates, and I think it is necessary for the commission members to come before and Oireachtas committee has been asked to do, and it should do without delay.”
‘Added insult to injury’
Minister for Higher Education Simon Harris had earlier called on the authors of the commission’s report to come before the Oireachtas committee on children to discuss their findings. He said Prof Daly’s appearance at the seminar had “added insult to injury” for survivors who had questions about the commission’s final report.
Prof Daly told the seminar that the commission experienced “heavy pushback” from religious orders and was separately threatened with legal action at one stage. Prof Daly defended the final report and said it had to meet “robust legal standards of evidence” amid criticism from survivors about inaccuracies.
Some survivors and families have raised concerns that accounts of evidence they gave to the confidential committee, which was separate to the commission’s final report, contained errors and misrepresentations.
Prof Daly said it was “not a wise idea” to run the confidential committee report alongside the inquisitorial part of the commission.
“I don’t think the two should have been put into the one commission,” she said.
“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.”
This, she said, happened “with a vengeance” and she gave the example of the Tuam Mother and Baby Home.
Proper public forum
Dr Maeve O’Rourke, a human rights lawyer who has worked with survivors’ groups, said she was “very glad” Prof Daly had spoken publicly.
“It shows the need for this to a proper public forum, but this is definitely not the way to go about revealing the commission’s methodology, and I do hope they come before the Oireachtas.”
She said Prof Daly, while detailing the legal scrutiny the commission was under “did not suggest [IT]was unable to handle the legal pressure”.
Dr O’Rourke said her concern was that the commission had “only heeded the fair procedure rights of the alleged wrongdoers” in its work.
She said survivors were equally entitled to see evidence relating to them and make comments on it.
She called on the Government to “repudiate the entire report”, citing the recent example of the Kerry Babies tribunal findings being overturned - albeit after a court case.
In addition to repudiating the report, the Government should produce the archive of the commission so important material gathered during the process was made available to those personally affected.
“This cannot sit on the national historical record as an accepted historical account”.