I return to the latest in my series about Ireland’s proposed National Centre for Research & Remembrance or the NCRR. I’ve waited for a longer period than normal between episodes in this series of podcasts, as I have been waiting for a response to my letters from the Minister; I will update you on my progress. But I shall also take the opportunity in this episode to examine the issue of context within the story-telling for Ireland’s historical Institutions; I will demonstrate why it is absolutely central to the objective of giving voice to Ireland’s victims, alive or dead, providing as it does, a solid foundation for truth-telling. As the strapline to my article states: For those affected, alive or dead, context, truth and rights is everything!
But before I start to speak about context, I just thought I’d bring you up-to-date in my desire to bring the voices of those who died before a State Apology was given to Ireland’s victims, and how they need to also have a seat around the table of the all-important Steering Group of the NCRR.
Why? Because whilst all the concerns of the victims, survivors and their families are equally important in the creation of the NCRR, there needs to be a voice to help deliver on the Irish government’s stated aim of ‘non-recurrence’ or ‘never again’ (an all-important International Human Rights Principle) – if you ignore this principle, you ignore the many thousands of stories of the ‘invisible dead’.
I have challenged the absence of the important voices of the ‘invisible dead’, and since the beginning of 2026, I have written to Minister Foley, seeking her opinion and help to rectify this wrong.
In writing to the Minister, I have done so respectfully, making my arguments in the most constructive way possible; I have even offered to meet the Minister in person to discuss this important issue.
Apart from an initial chased acknowledgement, each of my subsequent letters have not received an acknowledgement, that is until now.
The response received, and I’m not convinced that the Minister has been anywhere close to my correspondence, was simply a rehash and redirection that started off my correspondence to the Minister.
But importantly, not one single aspect of the points I had raised had been answered. I decided to write back to the Minister and highlighted the outstanding issues requiring her attention, namely:
The Exclusion Criteria contained in the Department’s letter dated 3/12/25 for the NCRR and a subsequent ad hoc adjustment of that criteria;
The potential failure to deliver on the Department’s public ‘commitment to non- recurrence’ within the NCRR;
The positive potential arising from the delivery of ‘non-recurrence’ within the NCRR;
The Exclusion of the ‘Invisible Dead’ & ‘Indirect Victims’ from membership of the Steering Group of the NCRR.
I asked that my original letter be “reconsidered and constructively and comprehensively responded to”, adding in conclusion:
“I again repeat; the Department, the Irish Government & the Irish Catholic Church have a golden opportunity to deliver on essential truths, which, if offered through consensus within the NCRR, will, I believe, go a long way toward healing many wounds of the past through the points I have advocated for”, offering as I did, my willingness to meet with the Minister in Dublin.
Those who know me, know that I am like the respectful dog with a bone and I sincerely hope that my latest letter will actually deliver a response of value and certainly answer the actual questions asked! I will add that this is not the first time I have experienced a lethargy from Irish government departments and in the near future, I shall separately describe those experiences and the solutions I have created to receive other valuable responses!
But back to context, what is context and why is it important in this Irish story?
Insofar as the NCRR is concerned, I have made firm arguments that you cannot simply display a victims story in isolation. If you truly want to understand the reason ‘why’ that individual suffered as they did, then you have to deal with the history, the background, the parties involved, with all its failings, in other words the context – that is what ‘non-recurrence’ should be delivering (you will find more about my observations of the question of the “why” is so important in earlier episodes of this series).
Context and fairness was equally important in the Dublin Diocese inquiry. This was a comprehensive inquiry into the abuses committed within the Dublin Diocese, delivering a damning report against those responsible for the crimes and incidents discovered. But, complaints were made that the inquiry, which had its basis within the Commission of Investigations Act 2004. For the supporters of the Inquiry, it was argued that the Act removed the adversarial nature of such investigations, and were not designed to “to judge or assess individual behaviour so they do not provide the same constitutional and legal protections as the courts system”. This led to the Association of Catholic priests challenging the process. It appeared that whilst Catholic priests were broadly fearful of the fall of their wider reputations, they challenged the Dublin inquiry by highlighting what they saw as the unfairness of the process by failing to “allow a person, whose reputation is at stake, to call a witness and bring in council to help them challenge or rebut an allegation”.
So here we have a system, a public inquiry, seeking information and engaged in telling a story. But, the cries of foul were based in what they saw as a fundamental failure of rights and their ability to be able to tell their own story, to bring about a fairness, and I suspect they would have argued, an element of context to the story that was going to be told.
I would argue that this potentially represents a positive move towards a ‘non-recurrence’, to ensure that all voices are heard and represented. So what then is the problem with the NCRR and ‘non-recurrence’?
If the protection of rights can be argued in the content of a story-telling inquiry, then surely the story-telling NCRR should be telling the converse story of the rights that were failed and importantly, shine a light on those responsible for those failures.
Some will claim that this is unfair, but what is unfair, is only telling half the story when ‘non-recurrence’ demands that the missing half be told!
But let’s also look at an example of how perceptions, if not challenged, can greatly affect this question of the “why”, through a full and honest context-story-telling, against a binary story-telling methodology, apparently proposed for the NCRR.
My attention was recently captured by a post I saw, which offered an opinion on comments made by an individual within one of the social media platforms. They were providing a general update as to the progress being made by ODAIT (Office of the Director of Authorised Intervention, Tuam) and their excavation work in Tuam. As I read this update, my attention was caught by the following comment (reproduced as written):
“So the Tuam Home, or otherwise known at Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home in Ireland, was during a time of diptheria, whooping cough, polio, measles, scarlett fever, tuberculosis, and summer diarrea. To have thousands of infant deaths during this time frame of 60 years IS TO BE EXPECTED in an area of poor living conditions and minimal immunizations. Truly, this is a hit piece against Catholicism”.
It was a shocking comment to read and judging by other comments, there were many who were either offended or sought to politely explain their Institutional experiences. In a direct response to the writer, I unusually posted my own comment. The reason I did so was that it seemed to me that the writer was clearly separated from the facts of Tuam and didn’t understand the “why” or the context; I wrote in response:
“Seriously; a hit piece? As a Catholic, I refute that point and suggest that we all avoid conflating Catholic spirituality with the practices of individuals who should have known better. Here’s the Irish State’s own report [link provided] a report that is very far from satisfactory – this will illuminate the issues. Failing that, I’m very happy to talk about my own family’s experience in Tuam, and we are by no means demonstrating the worst of those experiences. We should remember: they were all born Irish Citizens and died as such – no accountability for them through their Human Rights, Constitutional Rights and dare I say, their Canon Law Rights”.
I did not receive a response.
This is I argue, a very clear example of why telling the whole story is so vitally important. The original comment was made by a well-known activist, providing an update on the exhumations taking place in Tuam. That simple update produced the response it did, unaware it seems of the wider story and why this happened to so many people.
This is the reason why I argue for a full application of the promised ‘commitment’ to ‘non-recurrence’ within the NCRR and for a full recognition for the ‘invisible dead’ in this process.
I am well and truly on the record for recognising that no matter how difficult it will be for Irish Institutional bodies, revealing their story against the binary-story-telling objective, can be achieved, through a consensus.
But if the “why” or the context is not delivered within the sphere of the NCRR, it creates a danger of external narratives that will weaken the message of the NCRR and it will certainly not deliver on the government’s stated objective of ‘non-recurrence’. Ireland’s past history will be manipulated by ignorance, delivering yet more trauma to its victims.
But I don’t confine my observations and comments simply to the chatter of the social networks. There is a real need to look closer to home and the growing realisation, that sites other than Tuam, are not receiving answers, the “why”, or the context on what happened to their loved ones who lived and died within these Institutions. Whilst there is great work being carried out by ODAIT, I strongly suspect that there will come a time when voices seeking accountability – an action that contributes to ‘non-recurrence’ – will become very evident.
To those sites beyond Tuam, those voices already exist, but the government is perhaps comforted by its ‘memorialisation’ clause contained within the Section 7 (5) of the Institutional Burials Act 2022: which states that:
“The Government may refuse to make an order under subsection (1) where other substantive reasons exist which cause the Government to form the view that memorialisation of the burials on the land, without further intervention, is more appropriate”.
This means that for a site like Bessborough in County Cork, the opportunity to discover the truth about where their loved ones lie, what happened to them, who or what was responsible for the causes of their deaths, will be lost it seems without any answers and subjected to a government decision that ‘memorialisation’ is more appropriate.
This discussion, this debate is happening in plain-sight, in 2026; there is a strong chance that the story of Bessborough will be buried this year.
The voices from some of these sites, like Bessborough, are caught in a limbo that prevents them from knowing what happened to their loved ones, where they may be buried and for some, the question of accountability is ever present.
In order to try and resolve the angst of so many, I know that some wrote to the former Minister, arguing constructively for the appointment of a Director for Bessborough or to extend the tenure and scope of activities for the current Director for Tuam. Using the Burials Act, they argued that rather than adopt a full ‘Tuam’ solution, the Director could be directed to carry out preparatory work or investigations for the whole site, so satisfying the proportionality aspects of the Act.
Not an unreasonable request you’d think? It was constructive, measured and respectful to the Act itself. But it also provided an avenue to assuage the very real angst that exists amongst the many groups that campaign tirelessly for Bessborough.
Regrettably, it seems that the government of the day did not warm to the proposal and so Bessborough, like other sites, remain on the periphery of Tuam, with the growing fear that they will not receive anything approaching a Tuam solution.
This begs a number of questions:
“How will the NCRR tell the story of Bessborough and other sites; how will they tell the story of Tuam; will the story-telling be simply a recollection of the memories of those who were once trapped in these Institutions; will the practices, stories or facts of their captors ever be revealed; in the absence of that all-important “why”, how can context, and more importantly, the failure of individual rights ever be reconciled; surely a full adoption and fearless presentation of ‘non-recurrence’ will deliver that reconciliation?”.
The problem is that in government meetings for the NCRR, the commitment to ‘non-recurrence’ rests within the silence of those in charge of the narrative and the very exclusions I have complained about.
Despite all this, I remain committed in support of the NCRR, but as a critical friend and a friend who wants the voices of the predeceased to be heard. My challenge to the Minister and the Irish Government is this: will you have the courage to have the conversation that you yourselves started?
(All rights reserved © 2026. This is the Article for ‘‘The NCRR: A Silver-lining for a National Remembrance VIII”. No reproduction, reuse or manipulation, in any form, either by human endeavour or by any form of software, algorithm or Artificial Intelligence system(s), in any jurisdiction, without the express written permission of Frank Brehany. Music: Bruach na Carraige Baine by Emmett Cooke under licence from ShockwaveSound).