Govt accused of dismantling watchdogs after health row

Aindriu

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
8,633
The Government was today accused of systematically dismantling public watchdogs after the Ombudsman claimed health chiefs refused to co-operate with an investigation.

Emily O’Reilly claimed the Department of Health laid a raft of charges against her over the conduct of her latest probe into 1,200 complaints over nursing home fees.

It revealed older people’s rights were abused over a quarter of a century because of a lack of State-funded beds.

The Labour Party alleged the Government had obstructed the inquiry and attempted to undermine the Ombudsman’s independence for the second time in months.

Read more: Govt accused of dismantling watchdogs after health row | BreakingNews.ie
 


D

Deleted member 17573

The Government was today accused of systematically dismantling public watchdogs after the Ombudsman claimed health chiefs refused to co-operate with an investigation.

Emily O’Reilly claimed the Department of Health laid a raft of charges against her over the conduct of her latest probe into 1,200 complaints over nursing home fees.

It revealed older people’s rights were abused over a quarter of a century because of a lack of State-funded beds.

The Labour Party alleged the Government had obstructed the inquiry and attempted to undermine the Ombudsman’s independence for the second time in months.

Read more: Govt accused of dismantling watchdogs after health row | BreakingNews.ie
Are these not among the so-called Quangos that we want to abolish?
 

TonyB

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
801
Twitter
technopolitics
Now Cowan backs up Harney saying that the Ombudsman should not comment on issues that are before the courts. This is another example of the government dodging the issue. There has been no comment from government substantially dealing with the claims levelled at them. Harney claims "That's a matter for the HSE", Cowan says "It's a matter for the courts" we have nothing to do with it, we just sit here with our mercs and our titles and our elevated opinions of ourselves with no accountability, no responsibility, and we will crush anyone who dares to shine a light on us.

The emperor has no clothes, our Quixote tilts at windmills, we are all lost at sea.
 

Clanrickard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
33,604
Are these not among the so-called Quangos that we want to abolish?
The Ombudsman is not a quango. She is an officer of the state.
 

Clanrickard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
33,604
Now Cowan backs up Harney saying that the Ombudsman should not comment on issues that are before the courts. This is another example of the government dodging the issue. There has been no comment from government substantially dealing with the claims levelled at them. Harney claims "That's a matter for the HSE", Cowan says "It's a matter for the courts" we have nothing to do with it, we just sit here with our mercs and our titles and our elevated opinions of ourselves with no accountability, no responsibility, and we will crush anyone who dares to shine a light on us.

The emperor has no clothes, our Quixote tilts at windmills, we are all lost at sea.
No. They claim she exceeded her authority She is not entitled to interfere in claims that are before the courts. She accused the Dept of Health of, amongst other things, not meeting its obligations to elderly people. The AG says otherwise and the government is obliged to follow his advice according to Harney and Cowan. They may have a point
 

Clanrickard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
33,604
Read the link in the OP - it was other "Watchdogs" that were being referred to !!
Ah yes I see what you mean. The Equality Authority and the Combat Poverty Agency should top the list for abolition.
 

TonyB

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
801
Twitter
technopolitics
No. They claim she exceeded her authority She is not entitled to interfere in claims that are before the courts. She accused the Dept of Health of, amongst other things, not meeting its obligations to elderly people. The AG says otherwise and the government is obliged to follow his advice according to Harney and Cowan. They may have a point
They may do, and I'm a lawyer. It's not the point. It's just another excuse, another lame, irresponsible, unaccountable, ignorant and bureaucratic response to a people seeking compassion, some hope, and maybe a little optimism. It is a corporate response, self-preservation at its worst. Emily O'Reilly is giving voice to people who are afraid of the state, who have been beaten and battered by the state, who are being bullied by the state (she suggests that confidentiality clauses attached to the twelve settlements to date are designed, essentially, in this way). And the response by government? "You have no right to accuse us!"

Like I said - you may be right. But it's wrong.
 
D

Deleted member 17573

Ah yes I see what you mean. The Equality Authority and the Combat Poverty Agency should top the list for abolition.
Hey - don´t blame me - I´m not one of the mob clamouring for the abolition of all Quangos. I merely asked were these agencies among the Quangos being targetted for abolition.
 

Clanrickard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
33,604
It's funny when those who buy into simplistic tosh like 'Abolish the quangos' bump into reality.
The only reality is that most quangos are full of over paid paper shufflers and fulfill no useful role.
 

Nemi_

Active member
Joined
Aug 20, 2010
Messages
252
Emily O’Reilly claimed the Department of Health laid a raft of charges against her over the conduct of her latest probe into 1,200 complaints over nursing home fees.

It revealed older people’s rights were abused over a quarter of a century because of a lack of State-funded beds.
But what's the feckin point of this investigation at this juncture? We can't afford the level of spending that we have. If the present legal entitlement is to fund more that we can, we'll just have to abolish that legal entitlment.

And if this is going to be another racket allowing the families of deceased residents in private nursing homes to get a payout off the State, it means that there will be even less money for people with real needs right now for supported accommodation.

Is that the intention behind this investigation? Is that the motive? How do these kind of stupid causes grow legs like this? FFS.
 
B

birthday

But what's the feckin point of this investigation at this juncture? We can't afford the level of spending that we have. If the present legal entitlement is to fund more that we can, we'll just have to abolish that legal entitlment.

And if this is going to be another racket allowing the families of deceased residents in private nursing homes to get a payout off the State, it means that there will be even less money for people with real needs right now for supported accommodation.

Is that the intention behind this investigation? Is that the motive? How do these kind of stupid causes grow legs like this? FFS.
It is a matter of obeying the law. Either people have rights under the 1970 Health Act or they do not. If the government prefer to reward their friends with the available cash and feel that the care of the elderly can not be afforded then they should have been honest enough to change the law.
But that is not the FF way.
 

corelli

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
4,472
The only reality is that most quangos are full of over paid paper shufflers and fulfill no useful role.
That is true, but there are many many many more deserving of abolition than the Equality Authority. Most are just doing what Departments should be doing anyway. It's merely outsourced Government.Those that challenge the status quo are the ones who actually SHOULD be kept. Ombudsman, Equality Authority etc etc.
 

Nemi_

Active member
Joined
Aug 20, 2010
Messages
252
It is a matter of obeying the law. Either people have rights under the 1970 Health Act or they do not. If the government prefer to reward their friends with the available cash and feel that the care of the elderly can not be afforded then they should have been honest enough to change the law.
But that is not the FF way.
Grand. But what's the point now? What can this action actually achieve? It can't enforce a right if there's just no capacity to pay.

This issue is an ex-parrot.
 

corelli

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
4,472
Grand. But what's the point now? What can this action actually achieve? It can't enforce a right if there's just no capacity to pay.

This issue is an ex-parrot.
It strikes me as more the attitude of the Department of Health to the Ombudsman's Office is the actual issue, rather than the actual Act of the Oireachtas.
 


Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top