Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Mother and babies homes information sealed for 30 years
Options
Comments
-
Interesting report on the Cabinet meeting here https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40072403.html
You'd really have to echo a question in the report: how was something that was not possible last week, possible this week?0 -
stockshares wrote: »Reports have contained redacted chapters in the past.
Redacted so as not to interfere with ongoing criminal investigations. Surely you would not want it to be otherwise? And they were subsequently published when investigations concluded.
And, possible redaction of the report was not the subject of controversy in this case.
Anyway, hopefully the latest development means a resolution is in sight. But it will not mean making the digitised archive open for public inspection :
"The Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration & Youth Affairs, along with Túsla, will continue to engage closely with the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner to ensure that the rights of all citizens to access personal information about themselves, under data protection legislation and the GDPR "0 -
Redacted so as not to interfere with ongoing criminal investigations. Surely you would not want it to be otherwise? And they were subsequently published when investigations concluded.
And, possible redaction of the report was not the subject of controversy in this case.
Anyway, hopefully the latest development means a resolution is in sight. But it will not mean making the digitised archive open for public inspection :
"The Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration & Youth Affairs, along with Túsla, will continue to engage closely with the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner to ensure that the rights of all citizens to access personal information about themselves, under data protection legislation and the GDPR "
No one wanted the Digitised archive to be publicly available to anyone. They were unhappy that Tusla would be in possession of the Database of Adoption records because they feared they would be denied access to their data
They wanted M+B home survivors to be able to access their data within it and to have safeguards that they would be able to do so.
People do not trust Tusla and rightly so. They have provided people with pages and pages of redacted data when they requested their own info, in some cases even when Mother and Child were after meeting up post adoption.
What they do want public is the Admin records so that the story is known and not covered up.0 -
Interesting report on the Cabinet meeting here https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40072403.html
You'd really have to echo a question in the report: how was something that was not possible last week, possible this week?
Utter shambles. Fair play to the members of the public that emailed TDs and the opposition TDs that were vocal (Catherine Connolly IND, Holly Cairns SD etc).
We definitely need more women in politics.What are they doing in the Hyacinth House?
0 -
Another issue has arisen.
Roderic O Gorman now says that two tests will have to be carried out before info is released.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/mother-and-baby-home-survivors-can-seek-access-to-personal-records-1.4393637?mode=amp&__twitter_impression=true
Quote
Despite the clarification, Mr O’Gorman warned that “this is not the answer” to all of the problems encountered by survivors and that “two tests” will have to be used before any information can be released.
“The Data Protection Commissioner raised an issue about the wider access to the archive once it transfers to my department. It was a significant issue. We referred that to the Office of the Attorney General. They came back to my department this evening and clarified that the 2004 Act does not preclude the consideration of data access requests by my department, so my department is bound by GDPR as regards the archive,” Mr O’Gorman said.
Any data access request to my department will have to be considered on the basis of
whether the request impacts on the rights and freedoms of others,
but also we have to consider whether the restriction on access to information is necessary or proportionate to safeguard the operation of commissions of investigation and future co-operation of witnesses.
Those are the two tests my department will have to implement if we get subject requests for personal information when the archive arrives with us.
Mr O Gorman acknowledged however that Tusla will still have to put in place the “test in relation to the rights and freedoms of others” when it receives data requests.0 -
Advertisement
-
Cluedo Monopoly wrote: »Utter shambles. Fair play to the members of the public that emailed TDs and the opposition TDs that were vocal (Catherine Connolly IND, Holly Cairns SD etc).
We definitely need more women in politics.
I wonder will Niall Collins change tack with his initial description of people like the above now that the minister and the AG have changed their minds?0 -
stockshares wrote: »Another issue has arisen.
Roderic O Gorman now says that two tests will have to be carried out before info is released.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/mother-and-baby-home-survivors-can-seek-access-to-personal-records-1.4393637?mode=amp&__twitter_impression=true
Quote
Despite the clarification, Mr O’Gorman warned that “this is not the answer” to all of the problems encountered by survivors and that “two tests” will have to be used before any information can be released.
“The Data Protection Commissioner raised an issue about the wider access to the archive once it transfers to my department. It was a significant issue. We referred that to the Office of the Attorney General. They came back to my department this evening and clarified that the 2004 Act does not preclude the consideration of data access requests by my department, so my department is bound by GDPR as regards the archive,” Mr O’Gorman said.
Any data access request to my department will have to be considered on the basis of
whether the request impacts on the rights and freedoms of others,
but also we have to consider whether the restriction on access to information is necessary or proportionate to safeguard the operation of commissions of investigation and future co-operation of witnesses.
Those are the two tests my department will have to implement if we get subject requests for personal information when the archive arrives with us.
Mr O Gorman acknowledged however that Tusla will still have to put in place the “test in relation to the rights and freedoms of others” when it receives data requests.
Tbf, you are looking for a story where none is.
the records were always going to be accessible to relevant people, just that people don't want Tusla being the over-seer of them. It's not clear that that has changed. And the records may still be redacted depending on what information they contain.
there's nothing massively different post cabinet meeting, except for the clarification re GDPR.0 -
Funny feeling that GDPR is now going to be used as a reason why they will not release the information that people need. They now see it as a tool to leverage rather than a complication. What I mean here is that under GDPR the data can not identify a person, so someone born in a mother and baby home can get their info, but not their mothers as under GDPR the data would not be allowed to be divulged if it identified her.
I can’t see this working out at all as people expect, it’s such a shame.0 -
stockshares wrote: »The AG changed his mind on GDPR so now survivors will be able to access their records.
https://twitter.com/MaryERegan/status/1321549677716774918?s=19
On Saturday Colm Brophy appeared on the Katie Hannon show and said that the Minister must obey the legal advice of the AG .
That is the reason why many Ministers said they voted to pass the Bill last week.
Listen back here. Katie only gave this the last few mins of her show so he starts talking about M+B from 46mins 47secs in. Let the Advert play first.
https://www.rte.ie/radio/utils/share/radio1/11245627
Now almost a week later the AG has changed his mind but the Bill has been passed.I wonder will Niall Collins change tack with his initial description of people like the above now that the minister and the AG have changed their minds?
https://twitter.com/rosdub/status/1321470271124082688?s=190 -
Funny feeling that GDPR is now going to be used as a reason why they will not release the information that people need. They now see it as a tool to leverage rather than a complication. What I mean here is that under GDPR the data can not identify a person, so someone born in a mother and baby home can get their info, but not their mothers as under GDPR the data would not be allowed to be divulged if it identified her.
I can’t see this working out at all as people expect, it’s such a shame.
this was already pointed out alright, GDPR does mean the data subjects (in this case the mother, the child and potentially the father if he's known) would have to consent to the release of personal information.
We are going to have to wait until a Court rules on whether a child's right to know outweighs the parent's right to erasure or non-disclosure. Anyone saying otherwise with any certainty is being pre-emptive.0 -
Advertisement
-
Deleted User wrote: »Tbf, you are looking for a story where none is.
the records were always going to be accessible to relevant people, just that people don't want Tusla being the over-seer of them. It's not clear that that has changed. And the records may still be redacted depending on what information they contain.
there's nothing massively different post cabinet meeting, except for the clarification re GDPR.
Your wrong.
See Simon McGarr on Twitter now. The Gov are interpreting GDPR to suit themselves and that is not how GDPR works.
An interesting conversation between Simon and Dan Boyle here about the conflict between Irish and EU law.
https://twitter.com/Tupp_Ed/status/1321578578354622465?s=19
and here where Simon McGarr says that the tests that O Gorman proposes are illegal.
https://twitter.com/Tupp_Ed/status/1321582231324921856?s=190 -
A good summary here on the problem with two tests and the difference between the Gov positions on GDPR in the last week.
What is shocking is it appears O Gorman used AG advice from 2018 to push this Bill through and did not rely on recent advice
See the last two paragraphs in the quote below.
https://www.thejournal.ie/two-tests-access-mother-baby-home-records-legal-error-5247758-Oct2020/?amp=1&__twitter_impression=true
Quote
Speaking to TheJournal.ie, solicitor Simon McGarr said that the second test – the need for restrictions on access to information to be proportionate to safeguard future commissions and witness cooperation – is “inoperative” because it is a “legal error” and should be set aside by the department.
“There’s a long string of case law going back into the 1970s, which says that states have a duty to directly apply European law and in any instance where there is a national law which contradicts or infringes upon the European rights exercise, they must set that aside and they must basically ignore it and apply the EU law directly,” McGarr said.
“And so, the the section under Section 39, which the previous AG advice that was cited claimed to have prohibited the GDPR, is still as unlawful now as it was then, and it is not to be applied – if it is in conflict with the GDPR, it is to be set aside.”
“To install it [the second test] as a bar to access is to breach article 12.2 of the GDPR, which says that every effort will be made by the data controller to facilitate the data subject.”
McGarr said that there was a “number of other very welcome points announced by the government”, but that the “minister has misinformed himself in relation to the GDPR and has fallen into legal error”.
“However, he is not passing a law. He is simply announcing that this is the policy his department will apply, and it’s up to him to immediately amend that policy or face the consequences of failing to amend it.”
McGarr said that the advice from the office of the attorney general cited in last week’s Dáil debate which said that Irish law had prohibited the application of GDPR was not true, which the current attorney general has since acknowledged.
“We weren’t told when the minister got that earlier attorney general advice that he cited in the Dail last week during the debate, but it is telling that the quotation that he used from it citing the AG’s advice used language that was repealed in 2018, suggesting that perhaps that advice wasn’t the freshest and hasn’t been revised since the GDPR came into effect,” McGarr said.
“It would be surprising if he was relying on pre-GDPR advice to justify an argument that the GDPR didn’t apply and if he told the Dáil that.”0 -
O Gorman has since said this but it's not clear if it refers to the two tests.
https://twitter.com/rodericogorman/status/1321589796356108289?s=190 -
You are all busy pointing out what i have constantly stated.
government and previous governments abuse GDPR along with
fail to put in place Sanctions as other countries even brexit country.
Sanctions as Criminal charges
Sanctions as monetary fines
This has been done purposefully to evade criminal charges.
Not only in the "mother baby" issue but ALL isues where government
act to protect themselves and their party for their complicity.0 -
You are all busy pointing out what i have constantly stated.
government and previous governments abuse GDPR along with
fail to put in place Sanctions as other countries even brexit country.
Sanctions as Criminal charges
Sanctions as monetary fines
This has been done purposefully to evade criminal charges.
Not only in the "mother baby" issue but ALL isues where government
act to protect themselves and their party for their complicity.
I agree. And this is prudent particularly with children in foster care right now. Or perhaps foster care is a leap ...some of them are in b& bs0 -
stockshares wrote: »Report might not be available until Nov-Dec
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40071926.html?type=amp&__twitter_impression=true
Quote
The Commission is due to report to the Government this week, but the report will first be sent to the attorney general, An Garda Síochána, and the Director for Public Prosecutions.
It is understood that the report is over 4,000 pages long, so the process of those bodies reporting back their findings is expected to take a number of weeks.
A bill related to the Commission's data was passed in the Dáil last week by 78 votes to 67 and provides for the transfer of a database of 60,000 adoption records compiled by the Commission to Tusla. Other records will be sealed for 30 years under the 2004 Commissions of Investigation Act.
End Quote
The other records mentioned above are what Maeve O Rourke wants to be made available also. These records will contain Admin records of how the M+B homes were run and what took place in them.
The GDPR act of 2018 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2018/act/7/enacted/en/html
requires these records be made available because they relate to a person's data. The Gov don't want this data available because it will show members of Political Partys, Clergy, Business, Gardai and Medical Professionals in a bad light due to the criminal acts that took place.
Why are the reports being sent to AGS and the DPP first ? Is that what always happens? I can see how the Atorney General might get a copy of these commission reports normally but aren't the other two organisations more interested in crimes and prosecutions0 -
mrslancaster wrote: »Why are the reports being sent to AGS and the DPP first ? Is that what always happens? I can see how the Atorney General might get a copy of these commission reports normally but aren't the other two organisations more interested in crimes and prosecutions
Yes - always the case where possible prosecutions may follow. It is why parts of previous reports were redacted for a period to allow criminal investigations/ prosecutions to proceed. Publishing the findings of the tribunal before these take place would be regarded as prejudicial and would most likely scupper any chance of conviction.0 -
mrslancaster wrote: »Why are the reports being sent to AGS and the DPP first ? Is that what always happens? I can see how the Atorney General might get a copy of these commission reports normally but aren't the other two organisations more interested in crimes and prosecutions
I’d have assumed it was the AG first(I think that’s be law) to make sure that anything in it doesn’t cause issue for any ongoing cases involving any named in the report. I don’t know why it’s going to AGS and the DPP first though.
Anyway the statement released this morning by the government is about a week late but in fairness it does set out why it did what it did and what it intends to do with the records and issues around access. I mean this statement along with the children’s minister saying what’s he’s saying on morning Ireland should have happened at the start.0 -
The statement has been posted in Tweets before. Here it is in full.https://merrionstreet.ie/en/News-Room/Releases/Government_Statement_on_Mother_and_Baby_Homes.html
Published on Wednesday 28th October 2020
Government Statement on Mother and Baby Homes
At its meeting today, the Government had a detailed reflection on all of the issues of public concern that were raised in recent days. The Government acknowledges and regrets the genuine hurt felt by many people across Irish society.
It is determined to take the necessary actions to ensure that these concerns are dealt with in a manner that is timely, appropriate and that is focused on the needs of victims and survivors.
The Minister Children, Equality, Disability, Integration & Youth Affairs will ensure that, throughout all of this, engagement and consultation with former residents, their families and advocates will be central to the formulation and delivery of a comprehensive State response.
The Government today agreed the following next steps: The Final Report of the Mother and Baby Homes Commission of Investigation, which is due for completion on Friday October 30th, will be published as soon as possible after it is received by the Minister. As required by law, upon receipt the Final Report will be immediately referred to the AG for legal advice as to whether it might prejudice any criminal proceedings that are pending or in progress To expedite publication, the AG will ensure that additional resources are in place to speedily review for publication what is expected to be a very lengthy Report. All relevant Government Departments and Agencies will develop a comprehensive State response to the findings and recommendations of the Final Report for urgent consideration by the Government.
The Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration & Youth Affairs, along with Túsla, will continue to engage closely with the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner to ensure that the rights of all citizens to access personal information about themselves, under data protection legislation and the GDPR are fully respected and implemented; additional resources will be provided where necessary. The HSE will expedite implementation of the provision of health and well-being supports to survivors The Government will advance its work on the Information and Tracing legislation, with a view to publication next year. The Government will also urgently proceed with the legislation to provide for sensitive and appropriate actions at the burial site at the former Mother and Baby Home at Tuam, Co Galway, and at any other sites where this is appropriate.
The Government will work with the Oireachtas Committee on Children to seek an all-party consensus in the Oireachtas on these very sensitive issues The Government will work to establish on a formal, national basis an archive of records related to institutional trauma during the 20th century; this will include archiving relevant records and witness testimony by victims and survivors; it will be developed at a suitable site and operated in accordance with the highest international standards; it will be designed in cooperation with professional archivists and historians, as well as with victims, survivors and their advocates. Finally, the Government reaffirmed the reasons for bringing forward the recent legislation to preserve and protect valuable records that would otherwise have been destroyed or rendered useless. This was as a response to the clearly expressed views of the Commission of Investigation, chaired by Judge Yvonne Murphy, that: The Commission had compiled a database of all the mothers and children who were resident in the main mother and baby homes. It is clear that this database would be of considerable assistance to those involved in providing information and tracing services; under existing legislation, the database would have to be effectively destroyed As the information compiled in the database is all sensitive personal information, the Commission would be obliged under existing legislation to redact the names and other identifying information about the residents of these homes before submitted to the Minister; the Commission stated this would have the effect of rendering the database useless.
The Commission was of the view that the database should be preserved and made available to the holders of the original records for information and tracing purposes (or to whatever body is charged with information and tracing services). The Commission stated very clearly that this would require legislation. The legislation had to be passed before the deadline of October 30th in order to protect and preserve these vital records of a dark chapter in our history.0 -
I’d have assumed it was the AG first(I think that’s be law) to make sure that anything in it doesn’t cause issue for any ongoing cases involving any named in the report. I don’t know why it’s going to AGS and the DPP first though.
Anyway the statement released this morning by the government is about a week late but in fairness it does set out why it did what it did and what it intends to do with the records and issues around access. I mean this statement along with the children’s minister saying what’s he’s saying on morning Ireland should have happened at the start.
I think the AG decides if any matter in the report should be referred to AGS. Also decides if any matter in it could potentially lead to lead action against the State.
It goes to the AGS and the DPP to consider whether anything in it relates to any ongoing investigation it is conducting, or to matters likely to come before the courts (or currently before the courts, as the case may be).0 -
Advertisement
-
stockshares wrote: »The statement has been posted in Tweets before. Here it is in full.https://merrionstreet.ie/en/News-Room/Releases/Government_Statement_on_Mother_and_Baby_Homes.html
Seems like kicking the can yet again - what's missing, are dates. WHEN will the recommendations be finished? WHEN will the AG resolve issues around litigation?
WHEN will the report be published - you publish it on a date, not 'as soon as possible.' How about, by Christmas. Anyone working on it, can work from home and as they've most likely been furloughed with pay, can put in extra hours.
And so on. It's a can-kick. The HSE response to the victims - who is overseeing that? Without a boot on the neck the HSE are the kings of shuffling paper and getting nothing done, while fiercely defending themselves.
Disappointing.0 -
The Irish Times published another misleading article on the clash between the 2004 Act and the Data Protection Act 2018 which was updated to include the GDPR framework.
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/no-grand-conspiracy-to-protect-those-responsible-for-mother-and-baby-homes-1.4393548?mode=amp
The incorrect info is quoted below.
Quote
Behind all the confusion of last week was the erroneous assumption that the Government could push back the October 30th date for receipt of the report to allow for further debate on last week’s Bill, now Act, which transfers the database to the child and family agency, Tusla, while denying public access to it for 30 years.
The Government has no such powers. The commission sets that date. Set up by the State, it is independent of the State. Last week too it was erroneously claimed that the 2018 GDPR Act – which covers data protection – meant the commission could no longer abide by provisions of the 2004 Act which set it up, and stipulated that documents it accumulated must be placed beyond public access.
The 2018 GDPR Act allows for exceptions, including where “official or legal inquiries” are concerned. Access to such information can, however, be arranged by separate legislation, which Ministers have promised to introduce.
A view implicit in some comments last week was that the commission was part of some grand conspiracy to hide away information which would protect those responsible for abuses in the mother and baby homes.
End Quote
This article has been discredited by Simon McGarr and Darragh O Brien below
https://twitter.com/Tupp_Ed/status/1321613476092063744?s=19
https://twitter.com/CBridge_Chief/status/1321609228713447426?s=190 -
Roderic O Gorman was on Morning Ireland this morning.
Listen here from 26mins in. Let the Ad play first.
https://www.rte.ie/radio/utils/share/radio1/21857531
Maeve O Rourke is on the Claire Byrne Show now (Boucher Hayes standing in for Claire).
She gave an excellent response at the end to Boucher Hayes question asking if the Commission has been unfairly perceived to be covering up what happened.
She said it is unfortunate that people have to testify in private with no access to a psychiatrist, where no body is held accountable for crimes committed and unfortunate that the Commission is the only game in town for dealing with abuses of this nature. She did say that this not the Commissions fault. It is the position that it was put in.
I'll post the podcast later
Edit:
It does seem this morning that the media are very keen to say that there is no official conspiracy to cover up the crimes of the M+B homes. Patsy McGarry had an article in this morning's Irish Times and now Boucher Hayes asks for them to be let off the hook.
Katherine O Donnell has also commented on the sustained misinformation campaign by the Irish Times
https://twitter.com/Ka_ODonnell/status/1321733514031734785?s=190 -
stockshares wrote: »Roderic O Gorman was on Morning Ireland this morning.
Listen here from 26mins in. Let the Ad play first.
https://www.rte.ie/radio/utils/share/radio1/21857531
Maeve O Rourke is on the Claire Byrne Show now (Boucher Hayes standing in for Claire).
She gave an excellent response at the end to Boucher Hayes question asking if the Commission has been unfairly perceived to be covering up what happened.
She said it is unfortunate that people have to testify in private with no access to a psychiatrist, where no body is held accountable for crimes committed and unfortunate that the Commission is the only game in town for dealing with abuses of this nature. She did say that this not the Commissions fault. It is the position that it was put in.
I'll post the podcast later
Edit:
It does seem this morning that the media are very keen to say that there is no official conspiracy to cover up the crimes of the M+B homes. Patsy McGarry had an article in this morning's Irish Times and now Boucher Hayes asks for them to be let off the hook.
Katherine O Donnell has also commented on the sustained misinformation campaign by the Irish Times
https://twitter.com/Ka_ODonnell/status/1321733514031734785?s=19
Presumably because they understand that nothing much has changed, and O'Gorman is going what he said he would do, tbh.
I appreciate trust in the Government is low in general, and about these issues in particular, but O'Gorman could have taken the easier option and not legislated for the second database (and a more cynical or experienced politician would have, imo) but he's been trying to the right thing here.0 -
I find the more I dig into this issue, the more I see the failure is a failure to communicate. Bad politics, rather than bad legislation.Deleted User wrote: »I appreciate trust in the Government is low in general, and about these issues in particular, but O'Gorman could have taken the easier option and not legislated for the second database (and a more cynical or experienced politician would have, imo) but he's been trying to the right thing here.
Hopefully this new Minister will learn from the experience in how he takes the agenda from here.0 -
I'm a little late to the party here so bare with me
Iv one question aren't survivors going to have access to their own information ? if so what the problem ?
Why do some people want it made public ?
Am I missing something0 -
yourdeadwright wrote: »I'm a little late to the party here so bare with me
Iv one question aren't survivors going to have access to their own information ? if so what the problem ?
Why do some people want it made public ?
Am I missing something
Yes they are! That has been clearly stated.
And it will be protected against general access as it right and proper.
I think it comes under the same category as people demanding exact details of the folk who have died of covid. ….0 -
Yes they are! That has been clearly stated.
And it will be protected against general access as it right and proper.
I think it comes under the same category as people demanding exact details of the folk who have died of covid. ….
so why is everyone losing there **** ?
What is there counter argument ?0 -
yourdeadwright wrote: »so why is everyone losing there **** ?
What is there counter argument ?
I honestly have no idea; All that matters is that it has been rightly decided and wlil be enforced now/
Some erroneous idea of some " right to know" when they have none? Same as the other example I quoted.0 -
Advertisement
-
yourdeadwright wrote: »so why is everyone losing there **** ?
What is there counter argument ?
There isn't really one. It's just that O'Gorman wasn't clear in what he was trying to achieve last week, and why the Bill had to be passed so quickly. He probably should have contacted the various survivor agencies and explained in detail the issues he was faced with and the proposed solution before announcing the Bill.
As pointed out it's a communications issue.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement