The NCRR: The Silver-Lining for a National Remembrance VI?

Indirect Victims, a Steering Group and ‘Non-Recurrence’

“Today I am now on my fifth, and for some of you, you will be happy to hear, this will be the last article in the series where I shall be writing about the proposed NCRR”.

Those were the words I wrote on the 18 August of last year.

Well, I had the best intentions because I wanted to stop what appeared to be the never-ending soap-opera of commentary with an Irish government department over the development of the National Centre for Research and Remembrance (NCRR). I also considered that there were other wider areas of ‘non-recurrence’ that I wanted to explore and I’ve produced other articles accordingly. There was a certain amount of frustration in the fact that my offer of continued engagement appeared to have fallen on stony ground, and with it, discussions on that department’s very own ‘concerted commitment to ‘non-recurrence’, actually meant.

But in this hiatus, I haven’t been inactive.

Gravestone for some of the reinterred women from the High Park Magdalen Laundry in Dublin

Earlier this year, the Irish government issued a call for ‘affected persons’ to apply for positions on the Steering Group for the NCRR, Museum Expert Panels and the Special Advocates Advisory Panel.

When I examined the criteria of those who could apply, it became evident that I was excluded because I had not been directly affected and that I had no lived experience of being in one of Ireland’s Institutions.

The criteria completely ignored all those who had died before any State Apology, cementing in their invisibility created by that State Apology, thus disallowing surviving relatives from accessing any aspect of the official Redress or Transitional Justice process. It also failed to recognise that surviving relatives would be legally recognised as ‘indirect victims’, who carried with them, the experiences of those who they once lived with, in other words those already classified as ‘direct victims’, and who were the holders of those ‘lived experiences’. ‘Indirect Victims’ are the inheritors of those lived experiences along with the direct experiences of living with those ‘direct victims’.

Naturally, I challenged the criteria. In my 5^th article in the series, I gave an account of that challenge; a challenge on the language used and the overall poor construction of the language of that criteria. 10 days after the final response which referred me to a complaints process, I received a further response.

That response declared that ‘family members’ could now apply for the Advisory Council and the Museum Expert Panels; this inclusion of ‘family members’ was said to have taken place “following further consideration with the bodies concerned”. In effect, they have begun the process of recognising the role of ‘family’ as ‘indirect victims’, who had been excluded from committee applications within the initial documentation. However, the correspondence remained silent on the issue of the Steering Group membership.

It didn’t seem fair nor equitable that a sizeable stakeholder cohort should be excluded from the most important Committee. How for example, can you start with a limiting criteria and language, to then in the midst of the application process partially change that criteria to include ‘family members’, but only for certain groups, and to fail to extend that ‘new’ criteria to the principle organ of the NCRR, the Steering Group?

The Steering Group is important in the creation of the NCRR. Everything passes through this group; all the decisions are made within its structure.

Not deterred, I decided that despite the inequity of the criteria, I would only apply for one group, that being the Steering Group. I set out my stall in the application.

On the 3 December 2025, I received a letter from the Department in which I was advised that my application to be a member of the NCRRs Steering Group has been rejected, citing the set criteria that was originally created for this Group.

I was neither disappointed nor surprised by this decision.

I reflected on all of the issues.

I decided to write to Minister Foley, setting out my thoughts on the issues of my application.

Photo of Loug Derg near Portumna in Co. Galway which is a key location in Frank Brehany’s book, A Magdalene Rose

I addressed several key important facts with the Minister:

The impending failure of a ‘commitment to non-recurrence’’:

I began by advising that the Department, through its stakeholder sessions, from Dublin to London, delivered a clear statement on making a “concerted commitment to ‘non-recurrence’’.

I spoke to how I have always provided very clear support for the development of the NCRR and that I have always believed, even before the Department’s statements on the issue, that ‘non-recurrence’ is a key element to the NCRRs development. I had simply responded positively to the Department’s publicly stated intentions and policy.

I referred to the various Department responses I received, where the concept of ‘non-recurrence’, was asserted to be delivered through the creation of a research centre. Equally, in discussions on this distinct point, the Department made clear to me that they understood the concept of ‘non-recurrence’ and of their obligations under International Human Rights Law and best practices.

I expressed my absolute support the creation of a research centre, particularly for academic research. However, I observed, for the vast majority of visitors to the NCRR, many will not use such a research facility; some will not have the skill-set to carry out that research. My view expressed that there was a need to develop ‘non-recurrence’ beyond the research model.

I made the point that everything that I have discussed, written and represented in response to the Department’s ‘commitment’, has been done to ensure support for this key element. I advised the Minister that I have expressed to the Department, that ‘non-recurrence’ is about delivering context to a past suffering, answering the question of “why?”, delivering the truth about why so many suffered gross human rights violations, detailing the conditions, the history, the decisions and the parties who were responsible for the creation of those Institutional systems and their rationale for doing so.

I speculated with the Minister that when the Department presented the issue of ‘non-recurrence’, they did so with honourable intentions, because they no doubt considered that to implement such an important human rights element within NCRR, this would deliver a strong central fundamental core of context and truth-telling into the overall story.

The representations made by the Department appeared to follow the line developed by one of the Minister’s predecessors, Minister Zappone, who considered that the human-rights-based approach to Institutional wrongs, and in particular, guarantees of ‘non-recurrence’ must be applied.

I demonstrated to the Minister that within the imperative to tell the story of individuals, it was absolutely vital to explain the context in which so much suffering was and still continues to be experienced.

To fail to do so I have suggested, presents a Centre that would simply become a binary story-telling vehicle, without the necessary truth-telling of the “why” that is required.

I also, sympathetically, set out very clearly that this would most certainly create an uncomfortable set of issues for both State and the Religious Orders to consider and deliver. I expressed that I am not unsympathetic to those challenges. But, I believe, through a careful and fully engaged process, I do not doubt that a consensus could be reached which would go a long way to deliver on the commitment to ‘non-recurrence’.

I have explained to the Minister that this is not about tearing down the very institutions that exist within a State, but to encourage those same Institutions to be open, truthful and constructive, because that is where the solutions can be found in the long-running sores that stem from Ireland’s Institutional wrongs.

I wrote that I was very open to developing the narrative around ‘non-recurrence’ and offered to be part of any process the Department wished to design. Unfortunately, some 319 days later, no contact had been received; ‘non-recurrence’ as it should be delivered under International Law, appeared to have faltered.

Exclusion of the ‘Invisible Dead’ and ‘Indirect Victims’ from the Steering Group:

I advised the Minister that there was another fundamental failure by the Department, offered through their letter.

Throughout my engagement concerning the NCRR, quite correctly, the discussions have been focussed on the experiences of the living victims and survivors.

However, I explained that I had not detected how the lived experiences of all those who died before a State Apology will ever be represented, if at all. I have invited the Minister to accept that they have been rendered invisible on multiple levels, following a State Apology.

I presented a counter-argument that the Department will seek to argue that in regards to the NCRR, this will not be the case, because other groups and committees exist to help make their voice heard. But this new ‘inclusion’ was delivered on 28 August 2025 during the course of the application process, and I countered, that those who represent the lived experiences of those who died before a State Apology are still, quite evidently, excluded from the Steering Group.

It therefore means that this invisible group, those being the loved ones who died before a State Apology, who suffered from unresolved gross human rights violations, and those who now advocate for them, will remain unsatisfied, unrecognised, particularly by any failure to deliver a true ‘commitment to ‘non-recurrence’’ and recognition of their lives and experiences.

I advised the Minister that I hold great respect for those who will engage in the other groups, but there is only one Committee or Group that can deliver on the Department’s ‘commitment’ and that is the Steering Group. I have reminded the Minister to remember that it was the Department that introduced the issue of ‘non-recurrence’ and that in the context of my own family’s suffering, this is an important issue that I fear will be lost in sub-Committees.

I observed that representation of direct victims is small on the Steering Group and on the key issue of ‘non-recurrence’, even if those direct victims represent what is truly required, they will be working in a heavily weighted Group, thus potentially preventing progress on this important issue.

I have suggested to the Minister that given the fractured nature of co-design, there can be no confidence that the views expressed within smaller groups will impact the decision-making of the Steering Group. The Department has therefore erred in excluding indirect victim representation on the Steering Group and in particular reducing the potential for ‘non-recurrence’ to be fully deployed within the NCRR.

I have made the point that it should be acknowledged that the ‘invisible dead’ are very much part of Ireland’s Institutional history and their own lived experiences are manifested through their surviving relatives. I added that it has become clear to me that there is a growing generational recognition of the suffering of past family members; I do not doubt that these voices will rise and will demand to be heard.

Photo of the commemorative statue to the women who once worked in the Galway City Magdalen Laundry

I concluded with several positive points.

If the Department and the NCRR fail to fully deliver on ‘non-recurrence’ (and simply create a research centre), then it will I believe, ultimately deliver an NCRR that does not deliver full respect for the human rights abuses suffered, and that the deficit of the ‘why?’ or ‘non-recurrence’, in other words, the context to so much suffering, will haunt its salons as the apparent unwanted guest. I strongly believe that consensus can be reached on this important issue.

I added that I believe that the Department, the Irish Government & the Irish Catholic Church have a golden opportunity to deliver on important truths, which if delivered, through a consensus, will go a long way to heal many wounds of the past.

Whatever my views in August, I now believe that it is now more important than ever, that I maintain my commentary about the NCRR and to constructively challenge, despite the deafening silence, of the absolute requirement to embed a ‘non-recurrence’ with real meaning, demonstrating the best practices of International Law, within the NCRR.

It will indeed be interesting to see what the Minister will say and whether engagement and consensus will form part of the future narrative.

(All rights reserved © 2026. This is the Article & script for the Podcast for ‘‘The NCRR: The Silver-Lining for a National Remembrance VI?”. 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).