Minister for Children Roderic O’Gorman addressing the Seanad, sitting in the Dáil this afternoon

This evening.

The Irish Examiner reports:

The Government has contravened European and Irish law with regard to the accessibility of personal data by voting to seal the records of mother and baby homes for thirty years.

The Data Protection Commission was consulted by the Department of Children ahead of the drafting of the new mother and baby homes bill regarding the Data Protection Impact Assessment it had commissioned concerning the legislation.

In passing the legislation on Thursday evening, Children’s Minister Roderic O’Gorman said that his advice from the Attorney General was that access to the records had been explicitly restricted by the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004.

However the Irish Examiner can reveal that this is entirely contrary to the observations provided to the Department by the DPC.



More as we get it.

Government breaking the law by sealing mother and baby homes records, says DPC (Cianan Brennan, Elaine Loughlin, Ciarán Sunderland, The Irish Examiner)

Earlier: “I Didn’t Want To Ask Survivors To Wait More”

Yesterday: Simon McGarr: Sealing The Archive Would Be Impermissible In EU Law

42 thoughts on “Not So Fast

  1. GiggidyGoo

    so, “Jennifer Murnane O’Connor in the #Dáil just now says she wants #UnsealTheArchive brought back before the House. Claims TDs “did not have the proper facts” when they voted last night.”

    What details were improper or were missing? Or is she just saying this now, when the dirty deed is done, so that she can go back to her constituents and say ‘Look what I tried to do – don’t blame me” Is she the only one complaining?

    O’Gorman doing what the village idiot Ryan tells him, him having been told by the other two sleveens. And expect more of the same. There will be a revolt in this country if this continues.

    1. Brother Barnabas

      there wont be a revolt, and they know it

      lots of mea culpas, lots of sad faces… no actual consequences or change

    2. Steph Pinker

      Giggidy, there won’t be a revolt nor will it even be considered because there are many families who don’t want to contemplate or acknowledge what some of their relatives/ family members were subjected to – there’s a lot of pain being realised now within the older generation(s) and how the Catholic Church dominated their thinking; I’ve seen it, and believe me, from those I know who feel the regret and guilt by association, it has never left them, nor will it.

  2. GiggidyGoo

    And to answer Vicky Conway – no, Michael D won’t do anything of the sort. As a Labour Party fellow, chances are that he is well bought over the years. That’s the fellow who signed the Irish Water legislation over his Christmas Dinner without a thought crossing his mind.

      1. Formerly known as

        The Seanad needs to be democratically elected. The current set up is a sham. One person, one vote.

          1. johnny

            an uplifting little story from my fav NY cafe/bar or local,the owner Keith is English but i don’t hold that again him.
            not sure if i can link to insta or if it works from here..anyway.
            One night at Balthazar four Wall Street businessmen ordered the restaurant’s most expensive red wine: a $2000 bottle of Chateau Mouton Rothschild. One of the two managers transferred the Bordeaux into a decanter at a waiter’s station. Simultaneously, a young couple ordered the restaurant’s cheapest red wine, a $18 Pinot Noir, which they wanted pouring into a decanter. These two very different wines were now in identical decanters.
            Mistaking the $18 decanted wine for the $2000 Rothschild, the first manager formally poured the cheap wine to the businessmen. According to the manager, the host considered himself a wine connoisseur, and showing off to his guests, tasted the cheap wine before bursting into raptures about its ‘purity’.
            The young couple who ordered the $18 Pinot Noir were inadvertently served the $2000 Chateau Mouton Rothschild. On taking their first sips of what they believed was cheap wine, they jokingly pretended to be drinking an expensive wine and parodied all the mannerisms of a wine snob.
            Five minutes later the two managers discovered their error and, horrified, phoned me at home. I rushed to Balthazar.
            The businessmen’s celebratory mood was clearly enhanced by the wine they had mistakenly thought was the restaurant’s most expensive. This put me in a dilemma: whether to come clean and admit the manager’s mistake, or allow him to continue drinking the cheap wine in blissful ignorance.
            Taking the latter route would certainly be the easiest. Also the cheapest.
            It was unthinkable at this point to pull the real Bordeaux from the young couple’s table. Besides, they were having too much fun acting out drinking a $2000 bottle of wine. I decided to veer from my normal behaviour, and tell both parties the truth.
            The Wall St. businessman responded by saying, “I THOUGHT that wasn’t a Mouton Rothschild!” The others at the table nodded their heads in servile agreement.
            The young couple were ecstatic by the restaurant’s mistake, and told me it was like the bank making an error in their favour. The trouble was, it was me who was down $2000, not the bank.

            Both parties left Balthazar happy that night, but the younger of the two left happier.”


          2. benblack

            So, you did move back from …..

            Hope you kept your accent, the hybrid is so Hibernian.


            Hale – Health Life Expectency – so much better in Ireland.

          3. Steph Pinker

            Ha! Johnny, I like that tale because there’s wisdom in it – it reminds me of a scene in a movie I watched fadó fadó, where a poor man sits beside a rich man in a bar but the rich man’s Rolex has stopped, so he has to ask the poor man (who’s wearing a battery digital watch) what the time is – we’re all the same, money or no money – time waits for no one :)

          4. Steph Pinker

            benblack: I was given a sound piece of advice from my father when I was a child which was, ‘never to compromise myself or my company’; my accent on the other hand, is pure Culchie so that’s a given even at this stage – ah well :(

            Addendum: Hibernia? It’s just another name for this fair Isle of ours with long dark nights and everlasting rain and darkness – did I mention darkness?

          5. Steph Pinker

            benblack: time may very well be an illusion – and that in itself is a philosophical question, but aging isn’t, are you saying there’s no correlation? Is the concept of time a human construct? I’m asking for a friend who happens to be an archaeologist.

          6. benblack


            There are numerous correlations there, Steph.

            All I’m permitted to say is that:

            Life goes on.


            Not a 1990’s ‘Friends’ paleontologist?

          7. Steph Pinker

            benblack: true, life does go on, even if one is pushing up the daisies, it’s still creating life. Mind yourself :)

          8. benblack

            No nerdy Ross jokes?

            Fair enough.

            With regard to daisies,; it depends on who’s doing the pushing.

            Enjoyed that interaction, Steph.

            Please don’t vomit.

          9. Steph Pinker

            benblack: ?

            Where I come from, pushing up the daisies is an expression used to describe being dead (in a grave), yet giving life, insofar as death creates life. I didn’t mean anything untoward by my analogy. There was no offence intended.

          10. benblack


            I’m just going to ignore that – because I don’t understand it – and post this;

            La petite mort.


            Oh, what I meant was that to a nasty observer, our conversation would appear a little sugary.

            Hence, the vomit bags.

          11. Steph Pinker

            benblack: I don’t know what you meant by the ‘vomit’ references, maybe I’m not down with the kids colloquialisms (young goats to me – and always will be), but I’m riding out now, horses don’t wait for anyone; but I genuinely didn’t mean to offend you if I did, I apologise – that ok?

            Haha, I’ve just seen your update about sugar – don’t worry about what others think of you once you’re ok with who you are – you’ll be ok :)

          12. benblack


            Going to report you for not sparing the horses.

            The authorities will be in contact with you at their time and pleasure.


            Hide your boyfriend’s Y-fronts.

          13. Steph Pinker

            benblack: Giggle?

            Btw, a ride and a rasher is all we need…

            Morning! Have a good day you cheeky pup! :)

          14. benblack

            ‘I don’t know what you meant by the ‘vomit’ references, maybe I’m not down with the kids colloquialisms (young goats to me – and always will be), but I’m riding out now, horses don’t wait for anyone; but I genuinely didn’t mean to offend you if I did, I apologise – that ok?

            Haha, I’ve just seen your update about sugar – don’t worry about what others think of you once you’re ok with who you are – you’ll be ok :)”

            I don’t know, Steph.

            A horse or a goat – I just don’t know.


          15. benblack

            Paddy Power said in a Northern accent:


            Billy Hill, however, said Baaaaa.

            What to do, what to do?

    1. Janet, dreams of warm feet

      how long are you back ?
      I find the longer I stay the easier to adjust to the ” lifestyle” and yet the more I’m disgusted by how the place is run .

  3. benblack


    Why your managers couldn’t have dealt with this trifling matter is beyond me.

    The fact that you responded to their incompetence is admirable, however.

    I should hope that both imbeciles are no longer in your employ.

    Kind Regards,


  4. Tinytim

    Honestly I’m still quite confused by this, if anyone can guide me on facts ( with sources etc ) I would be obliged.
    My gut thinks the media may have twisted the actual argument.

    My understanding is that the documents were expected to be destroyed at end of commission.

    Evidence was given on promise of confidentiality/anonymity etc.

    To publish would be at least in bad faith damaging future prospects for getting evidence in such terms, or possibly opening up liability against the state etc.

    Sealing for 30 years was introduced to prevent imminent destruction and avoid the situations above; not because it’s the best possible outcome.

    Can someone help advance my understanding please?

    ( For sure there are possibly better solutions but not part of my question)

Comments are closed.