Put It On The Card


From top Then Fine Gael Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Paschal Donohoe launching the Public Service Card in 2016; Minister for Social Protection Regina Doherty,

This morning.

The Data Protection Commissioner’s report [ which stated there is no legal basis for people having to present a PSC in respect of any transaction between a person and a public body outside the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection] led to calls for the resignation of Minister for Social Protection Regina Doherty, whose department has overseen the project.

But now in a Government memo, jointly presented with the Department of Public Expenditure, Ms Doherty will tell Ministers that the Government is to fight the decision.

The Government will challenge the decision in court and defend the continued use of the card. They will also decline to publish the full report of the commissioner’s office.

Government to challenge order that public services card had no basis in law (Irish Times)

Previously: Regina Responds


Sponsored Link

31 thoughts on “Put It On The Card

    1. eoin

      Just because she had a rake of businesses that went bust owing tens of thousands to the tax payer, doesn’t entitle you to say unpleasant things about her, and if you don’t shut yer gob, you might find yourself being detained at Dublin Airport until you sign something to promise not to be beastly about her again.

  1. jason

    Yes, but it’s not the politicians money. They will spend thousands of other people’s money to prove they are right and everyone else is wrong. Everytime I hear the word politician I think of school kids shouting at each other. ‘Na na na na na, I’m right your wrong’.

  2. eoin

    Well, there we have it, just like Graham Dwyer, this government has been found to have acted illegally by the public official with responsibility [for data protection/privacy], and, just like Graham Dwyer, this government isn’t accepting the ruling and is seeking an appeal , with the guts of what will be €1 million of tax payers money of course. However, unless and until any appeal by the government succeeds, it stands guilty of the illegal mass surveillance of citizens. And of course, it is brazen not to have heeded the draft conclusions 13 months ago, and not to publish the report itself as demanded by the data commissioner. And the relentless march to sneakily introduce a national ID card through the back door without consultation continues, they had 3.2m when the data commissioner started her investigation, it’s up to 4 million now.

    FG, ladies and gentlemen.

  3. Mr.Fart

    what is it they call themselves again? the law and order party? .. not only breaking the law, but fighting against the law.

    1. eoin

      + €13bn (plus interest, minus whatever Goldman Sachs et al have lost on the management of the escrow account).

  4. Truth in the News

    Who protects the Public Interest and as part of the appeal will not Madam Doherty have
    to make public the full text of the Data Commissioners report under court disclosure rules
    they can hardly claim exemption under the Official Secrets Act, is it not ironic that
    that they can deny access to the full report but want to know everything about a PSC
    holder, at the end of day access to the public services of the State should not
    require any electronic database to be shared with anyone other than the Dept
    that set it up to access Social Welfare Services, the use of the PPN Number by Revenue
    is also questionable, the real reason was to use it at a later stage to deny other
    Public Services to those that did not say pay water charges, even the proposed
    boadcasting levy on households, its an administrative attempt to force the citizens to comply
    with every new tax gathering scam that can be used to pay off the Bailout Debt.

    1. Cian

      The idea behind the PSC is sensible. Identify yourself to the State once, get verified, and then you can interact with any department or agency with minimum hassle and fuss. Brilliant.

      They messed up not explicitly placing this on a sound legislative footing.

      1. Batty Brennan

        Well, I don’t know about that, Cian. Could it be that they weren’t open about their intentions because they knew full well that the general public would then see it for what it is – a national identity card in everything but name – and say “Thanks, FG, but no thanks”?

        Just how stupid do you think we are?

          1. Batty Brennan

            Oh, how well I remember those days when we engaged in the lively public debate around the introduction of the national identity card (to be known as the Public Services Card). Every citizen had an opportunity to engage and to lobby their elected representatives and appraise them of their views and wishes.

            Or, not.

          2. Mr.Fart

            they’re harvesting data without peoples consent, Cian. that’s the problem with it. It’s not innocent either, they’re harvesting it to sell to companies. as if FG would persevere with this because they so desperetly want to help the public. they’ve shown disdain for the populace over n over again.

          3. Cian

            Neither of you answered my question.

            I have already said that they messed up and should have got the legislation explicit and correct.

            What is the problem with a national ID card? Why would the general public say no?

            in 2016 almost 75% of the adult (17 and up) population had a (legal) driving licence. Most of the pensioners have a (legal) PSC.
            These are de facto national ID cards. Why not push that to 100%?

          4. Batty Brennan

            To repeat your question: “Why would the general public say no?”

            I wouldn’t presume to speak for my fellow citizens (or “general public” as you choose to describe them), not being possessed of the ignorance and arrogance of an FG lickarse.

          5. Cian

            Batty Brennan @ September 3, 2019 at 3:02 pm
            knew full well that the general public would then see it for what it is – a national identity card in everything but name – and say “Thanks, FG, but no thanks”?

            Batty Brennan @September 3, 2019 at 4:01 pm
            I wouldn’t presume to speak for my fellow citizens (or “general public” as you choose to describe them)

            Did you actually forget what you wrote less that 1 hour before?

          6. Batty Brennan

            That a died-in-the-wool blueshirt can’t differentiate between a proposition in the form of “could it be?”, and a sweeping presumption to speak for millions of others surprises me not at all.

  5. millie vanilly strikes again

    I’d desperately love to give Regina a good slap, preferably some good sense, but it seems unlikely.

    Sort of like winning the lotto

      1. millie vanilly strikes again

        I’m not sure why, but I sort of instinctively distrust comments which end with the word


        But Regina is an awful dodgy yoke so it wouldn’t surprise me is all I’ll say.

  6. Ron

    Cian I will tell you why it’s a bad idea. As well as the already pointed out issues around data being hacked, leaked or sold, convenience is not an excuse for the government to violate your right to privacy. Government should facilitate you accessing essential services, not force you to hand over biometric data in order to access them.

Comments are closed.

Sponsored Link