Read on Twitter
I am still puzzling over the MBHC records Bill, and it reminds me of something Carol Smart says, that I often teach my students - don't expect ideology to show up coherently in law. So the last government scrapped the Adoption Info and Tracing Bill and the Retention of
Records Bill. Rightly so, in both cases. Unsound policy, ignoring the rights and wishes of survivors. But in this Bill @rodericogorman is proposing something that merges *both* (apparently rejected) policies. It reinforces Tusla's existing practices re: personal info AND
it reinforces the profoundly unpopular policy around sealing (on a dubious legal basis). What, exactly, is this government attempting to do? What is the policy rationale?
And then if you pick at the Bill a little bit, it isn't clear what is going to be sealed. Where's the index? Why is this archive being split? Why 30 years? What about protecting future access? Is the Minister bound by the 2004 Act, or is he amending it? What a mess.
The Commission itself ran in ways that survivors found intensely frustrating. People should already have had access to their transcripts and to relevant records in the Commission's possession. So like...this isn't being done *for* survivors.
Anyway the Minister is a lawyer, and a smart one, so perhaps he will be able to deal with all of these questions. But this is not a great look.
