IOM DHSC & MANX CARE

[John Wright]

1 minute ago, Cassie2 said:

That is surely not the point

It is the point when it is being suggested the enquiry(ies) should be UK government public enquiries.

Im quite relaxed, and prefer, a UK retired judge, or KC, to run a Manx enquiry. Should it be an enquiry, a public enquiry, a royal commission, I don’t mind what it’s termed as long as the chair has, the right support, terms of reference and powers to compel evidence.

[Gladys]

4 minutes ago, John Wright said:

It is the point when it is being suggested the enquiry(ies) should be UK government public enquiries.

Im quite relaxed, and prefer, a UK retired judge, or KC, to run a Manx enquiry. Should it be an enquiry, a public enquiry, a royal commission, I don’t mind what it’s termed as long as the chair has, the right support, terms of reference and powers to compel evidence.

TBH, I thought it should be a Ministry of Justice enquiry, not just into the nuts and bolts of how these specific circumstances arose, but more into whether our machinery of government has the right processes and mechanisms to prevent these things happening in the first place.  Also into how the government behaves when a party to litigation, what happens if the AG (a Crown appointment) becomes conflicted?

The other unanswered question is what exactly was Magson's status, was she an employee, or was the contract with her employer NHS Trust?  Whether that should fall within a UK led enquiry, I am not sure, but yo have this lack of clarity over the exact status of the person filling a  very senior appointment, surely, has big question marks? 

 

 

[Cassie2]

15 hours ago, John Wright said:

It is the point when it is being suggested the enquiry(ies) should be UK government public enquiries.

Im quite relaxed, and prefer, a UK retired judge, or KC, to run a Manx enquiry. Should it be an enquiry, a public enquiry, a royal commission, I don’t mind what it’s termed as long as the chair has, the right support, terms of reference and powers to compel evidence.

""The right support".

You can be sure the intention is to have that as usual from the Tynwald Office. Or any other part of the IOM Civil Service like Cabinet Office - which has served the people so very well! 

What a joke that is. The Support Staff need to be UK people appointed independently of anyone in the Isle of Man.. 

Their intent is obvious - they call it just 'A Review''. They cannot have an Inquiry. And ''The Review'' is being ''Overseen'' by three of their own members! How much more more compromised than that can it be .................

And how totally typical that is. 

Edited May 29, 2023 by Cassie2

[John Wright]

25 minutes ago, Cassie2 said:

""The right support".

You can be sure the intention is to have that as usual from the Tynwald Office. Or any other part of the IOM Civil Service like Cabinet Office - which has served the people so very well! 

What a joke that is. The Support Staff need to be headed and run from the UK. 

What next - will they try and put Ashford and Hooper in the Review's  "Support Team"!

Their intent is obvious - they cannot even call it an Inquiry.

And how totally typical that is. 

When I’ve appeared as counsel at enquiries into serious matters here, the support for the chair has been a couple of junior barristers, counsel to the enquiry ( another barrister ) and full time seconded staff from IoMG who have been wholly controlled by the chair. I think you’re being unduly cynical.

And have you thought through the logistics. A UK appointed enquiry won’t even be able to sit here, where most of the evidence is, and can’t compel IoM witnesses to attend hearings in England.

That, in reverse, is a potential problem with a Manx enquiry. It couldn’t compel witnesses in the UK. 

We clearly need some method of commission rogatoire procedure for Tribunals and Enquiries backed up by reciprocal legislation throughout the UK and Islands. Can’t see Westminster, Guernsey or Jersey agreeing.

For that matter, when I’ve chaired Tribunals, Enquiries, or sat on Commissions, my/our clerks have always been exemplary. Even when I’ve been wanting to head off in a direction of my own, they’ve supported me.

The only poor experience I have had was when I was called in to see a Chief Minister and it was suggested that my conclusions might be changed. You can imagine my response.

Actually, I was also critical in a Social Security Appeal Tribunal about the failure of joined up approach between Home Affairs, DHSC, and Doi ( work permits ) about the case of someone here on, in effect, witness protection, who didn’t qualify for benefits, stole something to support himself, and then was disqualified from a work permit because of criminal record. None of the ministers accepted that any of it was the responsibility of their department.

[Boo Gay'n]

49 minutes ago, Cassie2 said:

""The right support".

You can be sure the intention is to have that as usual from the Tynwald Office. Or any other part of the IOM Civil Service like Cabinet Office - which has served the people so very well! 

What a joke that is. The Support Staff need to be headed and run from the UK. 

What next - will they try and put Ashford and Hooper in the Review's  "Support Team"!

Their intent is obvious - they cannot even call it an Inquiry.

And how totally typical that is. 

In response to your last few posts Cassie2.

“Peoples do not judge in the same way as courts of law; they do not hand down sentences, they throw thunderbolts; they do not condemn kings, they drop them back into the void; and this justice is worth just as much as that of the courts.”
― Maximilien Robespierre

I have always wondered why people in the British Isles are so passive in the face of dreadful governance.

[Augustus]

A metaphor for something or other.

[joebean]

5 hours ago, John Wright said:

It is the point when it is being suggested the enquiry(ies) should be UK government public enquiries.

Im quite relaxed, and prefer, a UK retired judge, or KC, to run a Manx enquiry. Should it be an enquiry, a public enquiry, a royal commission, I don’t mind what it’s termed as long as the chair has, the right support, terms of reference and powers to compel evidence.

Yes, but left to our political representatives, that’s exactly what won’t happen. I agree that UK Government and politics is similarly flawed but who else is there? You appear to keep some confidence in our system and our MHKs. They are a bad joke. They are all tainted by self-interest, incompetence, arrogance and pomposity, in different proportions. These flawed characters are what our political system attracts. There is no hope of self-correction or even an internal analysis of the problematic issues. Somebody else needs to intervene and do it and there is nobody else who can. 

[John Wright]

7 hours ago, joebean said:

Yes, but left to our political representatives, that’s exactly what won’t happen. I agree that UK Government and politics is similarly flawed but who else is there? You appear to keep some confidence in our system and our MHKs. They are a bad joke. They are all tainted by self-interest, incompetence, arrogance and pomposity, in different proportions. These flawed characters are what our political system attracts. There is no hope of self-correction or even an internal analysis of the problematic issues. Somebody else needs to intervene and do it and there is nobody else who can. 

Doesn’t really matter what confidence I have in local politicos if the enquiry is being conducted by a retired judge or a KC.

Enquiry first, then implementation. If they fail to implement, then there’s the ballot box. If they don’t and we don’t, then would I trust UK politicians more than ours? No. Not this lot. They are an even worse joke of self interest and incompetence etc than you say ours are.

[joebean]

1 hour ago, John Wright said:

Doesn’t really matter what confidence I have in local politicos if the enquiry is being conducted by a retired judge or a KC.

Enquiry first, then implementation. If they fail to implement, then there’s the ballot box. If they don’t and we don’t, then would I trust UK politicians more than ours? No. Not this lot. They are an even worse joke of self interest and incompetence etc than you say ours are.

John, you are missing the point. It doesn’t matter who conducts an enquiry if our politicians set the terms of it and consider the recommendations. It is Tynwald that is the problem and it is Tynwald that will prevent anything meaningful happening after an enquiry that they instruct. The only way that a meaningful enquiry will take place is if it is taken out of their hands. But of course you are right about UK politicians,  of either political party. There is no ideal solution, but our politicians can no longer hold our trust to do the right thing, only protect their own interests. 

[John Wright]

4 minutes ago, joebean said:

John, you are missing the point. It doesn’t matter who conducts an enquiry if our politicians set the terms of it and consider the recommendations. It is Tynwald that is the problem and it is Tynwald that will prevent anything meaningful happening after an enquiry that they instruct. The only way that a meaningful enquiry will take place is if it is taken out of their hands. But of course you are right about UK politicians,  of either political party. There is no ideal solution, but our politicians can no longer hold our trust to do the right thing, only protect their own interests. 

You are half way there.

Now for the first half. You are wrong. Until I’ve seen the terms, I cannot comment.

A UK enquiry, public or  otherwise Royal Commission, whatever, can’t sit and take evidence in the Isle of Man, it can visit and see who turns up to chat. Can’t demand or compel attendance of witnesses based here or obtain documents held here.

On that basis, what good would it do?

I suppose the Department of Justice could direct the Governor to set something up and dictate terms. But I don’t think they would. And, really, Braverman? Makes our lot look like lily white  angels.

We have had Royal Commissions come over. And Manx witnesses attend sittings in London. But it’s all voluntary and by cooperation. One was in 1911, the next was in 1970. Both were about the IoM constitutional position. The more recent about joining the EEC, McDermott and Kilbrandon.

[StrangeBrew]

1 hour ago, joebean said:

John, you are missing the point. It doesn’t matter who conducts an enquiry if our politicians set the terms of it and consider the recommendations. It is Tynwald that is the problem and it is Tynwald that will prevent anything meaningful happening after an enquiry that they instruct. The only way that a meaningful enquiry will take place is if it is taken out of their hands. But of course you are right about UK politicians,  of either political party. There is no ideal solution, but our politicians can no longer hold our trust to do the right thing, only protect their own interests. 

The committee is to draw up the draft terms of reference, but they are to be reviewed with whoever is appointed to carry out the review, so it’s not just in the hands of our politicians.

[joebean]

30 minutes ago, StrangeBrew said:

The committee is to draw up the draft terms of reference, but they are to be reviewed with whoever is appointed to carry out the review, so it’s not just in the hands of our politicians.

Well, looks like we just have to hope for the best. That usually doesn’t result in much. 

[Ghost Ship]

On 5/24/2023 at 9:48 AM, Moghrey Mie said:

https://www.cqc.org.uk/guidance-providers/healthcare/well-led-outstanding

 

I think the point that @Augustus was trying to make might possibly have gone over your head...?

[code99]

Many governments suffer a common problem – their credibility with their voters fades as they screw things up. The IOMG is doing what it instinctively does ‘best’ – deny wrongdoing, deflecting blame and defending themselves against criticism.

The BMA appears to be taking a tough line with the IOMG, a line that the IOMG is not used to. This fight, should it continue, will be bruising for the IOMG. Therefore, the IOMG should promptly mend the bridges with the BMA. To p*ss the BMA off will lead to a disaster in the Island’s healthcare services (e.g., if the BMA draws an increasingly bleak picture of what it is like to work in the Island’s healthcare services, staffing at Nobles will become even more ‘stressed’). The BMA is also determined to make an example out of the Dr Ranson’s case. I suspect that as much as they care about how she was treated, their ultimate audiences are the numerous NHS Trusts in England. It seems that in many places the tensions between administrators and medics have reached boiling point. This Island is not the only place where health-bureaucrats have been behaving (very) badly. IMHO, the BMA is flexing its political muscle in order to demonstrate to its members that if they are unfairly treated, the BMA will be there to support them, no matter who the adversaries are.

My view is that the UK-led Inquiry, which the BMA wants, will likely not eventuate. By the time questions like “who is going to fund the Inquiry?”, “who will be appointed to oversee the Inquiry?”, “what is the scope of the Inquiry?” are settled, the UK Govt will have lost interest. With Labour breathing down their neck, the last thing the hapless Tories want is to be embroiled in some sh*t show on the Isle of Man. IMHO, whether the IOM or the UK conducts the Inquiry, it will descend into inconsequential waffle. Our parish-pump politicians would love nothing better than to keep muddling through/pootling along, but the bigger picture for the IOM remains unchanged – the Island needs wholesale-reform across its government departments and the overall way it governs itself.

[Shake me up Judy]

The BMA could decide to do their own Inquiry into professional standards if they're not satisfied with a weak UK response or a Tynwald finagle. It wouldn't carry full legal powers or address the wider questions but they have the money, the time and the professional muscle that could really damage the IOM.