The Shame of Ireland

The Shame of Ireland

Ruairi Quinn

EDUCATION Minister Ruairi Quinn has ordered the state body in charge of a €110m fund for victims of institutional abuse to destroy internal reports following an embarrassing gaffe.

The fund was set up earlier this year to administer money pledged by religious congregations to support the needs of 15,000 survivors of institutional abuse.

But objections were raised when the RISF used data supplied by the Redress Board, a previous compensation scheme for victims of institutional abuse, to analyse gender, age and geographical patterns of survivors.

The use of the data in this way is not allowed under the legislation setting up the fund and Mr Quinn has confirmed that the material is now being destroyed.

The Survivors of Child Abuse (SOCA) support group said it feared that people in different parts of the country would be treated differently if such data analysis was allowed.

ASSESSMENTS

Spokesman Patrick Walsh said: "It is the deeply held fear of survivors that a scheme is being fashioned based on people's gender, age and geographical location.

"The survivors don't want that. We want a level playing field, where assessments are made on need alone."

The RISF was allowed access to records giving the names, addresses and date of birth of abuse survivors who had previously received compensation from the Redress Board.

Mr Quinn said this information could only be used by the RISF to determine a person's eligibility to make an application to the fund.

He said a RISF board meeting had been supplied with "a very preliminary analysis of the data", but that this was now being destroyed.

"Following discussions with my department, the RISF has confirmed the information received from the Redress Board will only be used for the purpose set out in the Act and that the information is held securely," said Mr Quinn.

The RISF did not respond to requests for comment.

A spokesman for Mr Quinn said the RISF board had his full confidence.

Irish Independent

Views: 191

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Reading the article again the following Phrase is somewhat an understatement

"officials there breached strict rules governing the use of abuse victims' personal data."

Bellow is a Section of the LAW pertaining to the administration of the Statutory Fund; please read it carefully and draw your own conclusions?

Prohibition of unauthorised disclosure of information.

23.— (1) In this section “confidential information” means information that refers to a former resident or that could reasonably lead to the identification of a former resident.

 

 

(2) Except in the circumstances specified in subsection (3) a person shall not disclose confidential information obtained by him or her while performing or as a result of having performed functions as—

 

 

(a) a member of the Board or a committee of the Board,

 

 

(b) the chief executive or any other employee of the Board,

 

 

(c) a person engaged by the Board to provide consultancy, advice or other services to the Board,

 

 

(d) a person with whom the Board makes an arrangement for the provision of approved services,

 

 

(e) a liaison officer,

 

 

(f) an appeals officer or any staff of the appeals officer, or

 

 

(g) an employee of a person referred to in paragraph (c) or (d).

 

 

(3) A person does not contravene subsection (2) by disclosing confidential information if the disclosure—

 

 

(a) is made to or authorised by the Board,

 

 

(b) is made to the Garda Síochána where the person is acting in good faith and reasonably believes that such disclosure is necessary in order to prevent an act or omission constituting a serious offence,

 

 

(c) is made to an appropriate person (within the meaning of the Protections for Persons Reporting Child Abuse Act 1998) where the person is acting in good faith and reasonably believes that such disclosure is necessary to prevent, reduce or remove a substantial risk to life or to prevent the continuance of abuse of a child,

 

 

(d) is in compliance with this Act, or

 

 

(e) is required by law or an enactment other than this Act.

 

 

(4) Nothing in subsection (2) shall prevent the disclosure of confidential information to a former resident to whom that information relates.

 

 

(5) A person who contravenes subsection (2) is guilty of an offence and is liable—

 

 

(a) on summary conviction to a class C fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or to both, or

 

 

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding €13,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years, or to both.

 

 

(6) In subsection (3)(b) “serious offence” means an offence for which a person of full age and capacity and not previously convicted may be punished by imprisonment for a term of 5 years or by a more severe penalty.

 

Transfer of certain information from Residential Institutions Redress Board.

24.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Residential Institutions Redress Acts 2002 to 2011 or any other enactment the Residential Institutions Redress Board shall furnish personal information to the Board.

 

 

(2) The Board shall use personal information furnished under subsection (1) in order to determine whether a person is eligible to make an application to the Board and for no other purpose.

 

 

(3) In this section “personal information” means the name, address and date of birth of a person referred to in section 3 (1)(a).

 

As you can see there are severe penalties laid down for “Disclosure” of “Confidential Information” yet there are no penalties for misuse of “Confidential Information”.

 

However the RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTIONS STATUTORY FUND ACT 2012 is an Act Laid down by Statute and as Such is a Law.

Not a Rule!

Not a Guideline!

but a Law!

The Law has clearly been broken! But by whom?

Reading the Board Minutes 9 May 2013

At which the following where Present

  • Ms Sylda Langford, Chairperson
  • Mr Damian Casey
  • Mr Austin Currie
  • Mr Tom Daly
  • Mr Paddy Doyle
  • Ms Bernadette Fahy
  • Ms Katherine Finn BL
  • Ms Phyllis Morgan
  • Mr Martin Power

7. CEO work report and next steps

The CEO presented an activity report for the period 10th April – 2nd May which has focused on meeting Board members and some key organisations and progressing issues in relation to office premises, staff and financial management.   Decisions arising from the report are:

The following form a part of these minutes

·  There was discussion on the need to ensure that former residents in the UK are not disadvantaged by being outside Ireland and this will be addressed.”

I am Surmising that the Board.

Made a decision to use data supplied by the Redress Board, a previous compensation scheme for victims of institutional abuse, to analyse gender, age and geographical patterns of survivors.”  to “ensure that former residents in the UK are not disadvantaged by being outside Ireland” .

It is my opinion that the Board and the CEO should resign? And or have preceding brought against them for braking the Law?

All th way through the law hes been ignored. This fund isint for elderly survivers of industriel schools. Its general. Even the propositons make that clear.And anyway no groups are there for many. Its like a business. If you fit into thier standards okey. If not nothing doing. We dont all live in the same countrys. never mind same districts.So a few benefit and we are all supposed to be happy with that. Its so mindless.

 

When I signed the "no disclosure of agreement facts" of settlement with The Redress Board; does their conduct in releasing these same facts (about me and every other victim they "settled" with  ) "null and void" that agreement? And if so, am I still bound by it? As I would consider taking action against them for how they got me to agree to the particular agreement I signed......

Any comments and/or advise is welcome  

Hi Drina,

Thank you for posting to the website!

 

Sadly the Gagging Order and that is what it is still stands, you will have also signed to say it was full and final Settlement. Which will also still stand!

 

Even the Solicitor that handled my wife's case stated clearly that

 

"The Redress Board where acting as protectors of the "Public Purse""

 

because the Religious had their Legal Liability Limited by the State in  the Unconstitutional 2002 Indemnity Deal.

 

All this could be repealed i.e. turned back as if it never happened IF the Politicians had the Will to do it?

 

Sadly they still have an undue Deference to the Church who in turn have a Stranglehold over the Education and Health Service of the Country!

 

It is my opinion that ALL Survivors were Duped and Short Changed. This can be borne out by Settlements in other Countries

Largest settlements in the Catholic abuse scandal

Shared  Between

Amount Each in Millions

 

 

 

 

 

Los Angeles Archdiocese: $660 million

508

$1.30

€0.92

 

 

 

 

San Diego: $198 million

144

$1.38

€0.98

 

 

 

 

NW Jesuits: $166.1 million

524

$0.32

€0.22

 

 

 

 

Orange, Calif.: $100 million

87

$1.15

€0.82

 

 

 

 

Covington, Ky.: $79 million

240

$0.33

€0.23

Hi all, just a few more questions... Exactly what is The Statutory Fund meant to pay "already paid victims" for....and could any examples be expressed here?

Of the 15,000 + - that have been addressed by The Redress Bd. Has any one brought a new action for misconduct by the board members during the hearing process? i.e. Having knowledge of the settlement offer that was made (and rejected) at a previous (and different panel) settlement hearing?..... (Which IS against the rules)

Next up...Including the 15k. Is there an accepted total or "best guess" number of individuals that were "residents" in any-all of Ireland's Holiday-Home-Work Camps? And last.... Is there a trustworthy Solicitor/Barrister in Ireland or England (that has their Town Halls on the right way?) If so? Advise Rob, or he can give you my direct mail #. 

D.D. 

Just screwed up here trying to post my reply..D.D.

Well,, Fruit never falls far from,,, ''These Irish Trees". This rotten Dail seed,, has reproduced,, a Billion Fold.
Shared if I can.
Having spoken to Mary Higgins I came to the conclusion she is way out of her dept. I relayed a serious matter to her about a member of the board in July and she laughed at me.
She called me back 5 days later singing a different tune and to let me know she spoke with said member and he has resigned.
Very unprofessional.

Got news for you Claire, that is a PLATINUM response compared to the norm in Irish NGO sector.

Usually you can bring in 12 witnesses to the fact that a board Director is a Columbian drug lord with a 12 year old wife who kills serials on weekends and all you get is "it will be looked into" and nothing happens... 

RSS

About

Rob Northall created this Ning Network.

Birthdays

Birthdays Tomorrow

CLICK TO FOLLOW SHAME OF IRELAND ON TWITTER

This is a Private Site

Membership is drawn from Survivors of the Irish Industrial School System their Family and Friends. Survivors of the Magdalene Laundries their Families and Friends are welcome too!

Others can follow on Twitter by Clicking the Button Bellow

Follow ShameOfIreland on Twitter

 Follow on FACE BOOK by Clicking <HERE>

Please Like this FACE BOOK Page?

Photos

  • Add Photos
  • View All

Badge

Loading…

© 2019   Created by Rob Northall.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service