IOM DHSC & MANX CARE

[Jarndyce]

2 minutes ago, Portfolio said:

How do you get a fast response from a mental case? Poke them with a stick and up they pop again in all their glorious mentalness. Are you tired of arguing with yourself? You probably need a lie down.

All the classics - and another entity on ignore.  Bye now.

[asitis]

19 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

This story doesn't make any sense does it?  If the practice previously had bespoke software, why don't they simply revert to that for the moment?  It's suggested like the new system hadn't actually gone live and there hadn't been a data leak, but who knows.  Alternatively why can't they switch to a software provider who hasn't been hacked?  Or is the problem to do with Manx Care and it's somewhat cavalier approach to data security - something to solved by getting rid of those pesky Information Commissioners who keep on pointing stuff out. 

The joke is that Manx Care took over the Hillside practice because they claimed that it was only able to provide emergency care for some patients.  Now they've managed to get into a situation when they can only provide emergency care for all of them.

More likely is we don't actually have any staff !

[Roger Mexico]

5 hours ago, asitis said:

More likely is we don't actually have any staff !

Well they must have some, or they wouldn't be able to offer emergency treatment.  More likely someone higher up the structure has decided that Manx Care is going to have a particular piece of dental practice management software without actually checking whether it will work or work here or be suitable.

[cissolt]

On 1/11/2024 at 4:36 PM, Two-lane said:

What if the backups are infected?

The backups, if they exist, would be detached from the system if they were following ISO standards.

[Roger Mexico]

An interesting FoI response came out earlier this month.  I'll quote the main piece in full:

We write further to your request, received 20 December 2023, which states:

"a) Please provide the hourly fee charged to the DSHC by the office of the Attorney General for legal advice or legal issues surrounding the Rosiland Ranson Tribunal Hearings;

b) please provide the overall amount billed to the DHSC in respect of all advice in defending the Rosiland Ranson claim."

A. Whilst our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance the public authority does not hold or cannot, after taking reasonable steps to do so, find the information that you have requested. This is in line with Section 11(3)a of the Act, as a practical refusal reason applies; namely we do not hold or cannot, after taking reasonable steps to do so, find the information that you have requested. Under section 15 ‘Duty to provide advice and assistance’ of the Freedom of Information Act 2015, for the purpose of legal matters with relation to Rosiland Ranson, the Department utilised the services of Callin Wild LLC and not that of the Attorney General’s Chambers Office.

B. The accumulated cost of legal services obtained with relation to Rosiland Ranson is £673,217.44.

Please quote the reference number 3584897 in any future communications.

Now the headline take-away here is shocking enough.  Over two-thirds of a million pounds has been spent by the DHSC on external  lawyers in the Ranson case.  All to end in utter failure and exposure.  

But look at this bit: for the purpose of legal matters with relation to Rosiland[1] Ranson, the Department utilised the services of Callin Wild LLC and not that of the Attorney General’s Chambers Office.   Because that's not true, is it? 

While Callin Wild took over during all those pointless appeals, up to that point and through the tribunal, the AG's Department (notably Anna Heeley) had been providing legal advice to the DHSC and supported the barrister representing them in the tribunal.  It was only when it became clear that they were deeply conflicted and possibly compromised in disclosure problems that Callin Wild were dragged in at last minute.  So there will have been a lot of time spent by the AG's Office on "legal matters with relation to" the tribunal and other related matters.

This isn't some secret knowledge, but a well-known matter of public record.  And yet the DHSC think they can claim something that is blatantly untrue and get away with it.  It's perfectly possible that they don't know how much, given the general incompetence and unprofessionalism with which the whole thing was handled.  But that's not what they say.   

 

[1]  I assumed at first that the spelling mistake for "Rosalind" was the fault of the questioner, but as it's repeated through the whole response, it looks as if it was 'corrected' by the DHSC in that too.  Whether this is petty spitefulness and complete incompetence is, as so often with the DHSC, hard to tell.  But you'd think they would have known by now.

[Mercenary]

28 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

An interesting FoI response came out earlier this month.  I'll quote the main piece in full:

We write further to your request, received 20 December 2023, which states:

"a) Please provide the hourly fee charged to the DSHC by the office of the Attorney General for legal advice or legal issues surrounding the Rosiland Ranson Tribunal Hearings;

b) please provide the overall amount billed to the DHSC in respect of all advice in defending the Rosiland Ranson claim."

A. Whilst our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance the public authority does not hold or cannot, after taking reasonable steps to do so, find the information that you have requested. This is in line with Section 11(3)a of the Act, as a practical refusal reason applies; namely we do not hold or cannot, after taking reasonable steps to do so, find the information that you have requested. Under section 15 ‘Duty to provide advice and assistance’ of the Freedom of Information Act 2015, for the purpose of legal matters with relation to Rosiland Ranson, the Department utilised the services of Callin Wild LLC and not that of the Attorney General’s Chambers Office.

B. The accumulated cost of legal services obtained with relation to Rosiland Ranson is £673,217.44.

Please quote the reference number 3584897 in any future communications.

Now the headline take-away here is shocking enough.  Over two-thirds of a million pounds has been spent by the DHSC on external  lawyers in the Ranson case.  All to end in utter failure and exposure.  

But look at this bit: for the purpose of legal matters with relation to Rosiland[1] Ranson, the Department utilised the services of Callin Wild LLC and not that of the Attorney General’s Chambers Office.   Because that's not true, is it? 

While Callin Wild took over during all those pointless appeals, up to that point and through the tribunal, the AG's Department (notably Anna Heeley) had been providing legal advice to the DHSC and supported the barrister representing them in the tribunal.  It was only when it became clear that they were deeply conflicted and possibly compromised in disclosure problems that Callin Wild were dragged in at last minute.  So there will have been a lot of time spent by the AG's Office on "legal matters with relation to" the tribunal and other related matters.

This isn't some secret knowledge, but a well-known matter of public record.  And yet the DHSC think they can claim something that is blatantly untrue and get away with it.  It's perfectly possible that they don't know how much, given the general incompetence and unprofessionalism with which the whole thing was handled.  But that's not what they say.   

 

[1]  I assumed at first that the spelling mistake for "Rosalind" was the fault of the questioner, but as it's repeated through the whole response, it looks as if it was 'corrected' by the DHSC in that too.  Whether this is petty spitefulness and complete incompetence is, as so often with the DHSC, hard to tell.  But you'd think they would have known by now.

It's hard to believe that the matter could not have been settled with RR for less than the quoted DHSC legal fees above, especially at the outset before the whistleblowing protection had been established.

 

To me the real shock in this case (after all employment issues will occur on a regular-ish basis in an org as large as IOMG) is that it was not settled at an early stage and resulted in the protracted tribunal process with large exposure for IOMG, and also reputational damage.

 

It's not clear whether that is a failure in the AGs advice or whether DHSC resisted this and wanted to have their day, but hopefully someone knows and steps have been taken to prevent similar happening in the future as the outcome probably costed 10x (with large reputational impact) what it should have had it been managed in an appropriate way for a government organisation. Has there been any follow up reviews published that have given more clues on the decision making in this area?

[Banker]

39 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

An interesting FoI response came out earlier this month.  I'll quote the main piece in full:

We write further to your request, received 20 December 2023, which states:

"a) Please provide the hourly fee charged to the DSHC by the office of the Attorney General for legal advice or legal issues surrounding the Rosiland Ranson Tribunal Hearings;

b) please provide the overall amount billed to the DHSC in respect of all advice in defending the Rosiland Ranson claim."

A. Whilst our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance the public authority does not hold or cannot, after taking reasonable steps to do so, find the information that you have requested. This is in line with Section 11(3)a of the Act, as a practical refusal reason applies; namely we do not hold or cannot, after taking reasonable steps to do so, find the information that you have requested. Under section 15 ‘Duty to provide advice and assistance’ of the Freedom of Information Act 2015, for the purpose of legal matters with relation to Rosiland Ranson, the Department utilised the services of Callin Wild LLC and not that of the Attorney General’s Chambers Office.

B. The accumulated cost of legal services obtained with relation to Rosiland Ranson is £673,217.44.

Please quote the reference number 3584897 in any future communications.

Now the headline take-away here is shocking enough.  Over two-thirds of a million pounds has been spent by the DHSC on external  lawyers in the Ranson case.  All to end in utter failure and exposure.  

But look at this bit: for the purpose of legal matters with relation to Rosiland[1] Ranson, the Department utilised the services of Callin Wild LLC and not that of the Attorney General’s Chambers Office.   Because that's not true, is it? 

While Callin Wild took over during all those pointless appeals, up to that point and through the tribunal, the AG's Department (notably Anna Heeley) had been providing legal advice to the DHSC and supported the barrister representing them in the tribunal.  It was only when it became clear that they were deeply conflicted and possibly compromised in disclosure problems that Callin Wild were dragged in at last minute.  So there will have been a lot of time spent by the AG's Office on "legal matters with relation to" the tribunal and other related matters.

This isn't some secret knowledge, but a well-known matter of public record.  And yet the DHSC think they can claim something that is blatantly untrue and get away with it.  It's perfectly possible that they don't know how much, given the general incompetence and unprofessionalism with which the whole thing was handled.  But that's not what they say.   

 

[1]  I assumed at first that the spelling mistake for "Rosalind" was the fault of the questioner, but as it's repeated through the whole response, it looks as if it was 'corrected' by the DHSC in that too.  Whether this is petty spitefulness and complete incompetence is, as so often with the DHSC, hard to tell.  But you'd think they would have known by now.

As far as I am aware government departments do not pay anything for legal advice/representation from AGs office as it classed as internal, exactly the same way as if a large company’s legal department provided it to say the IT or retail departments.

[Sheldon]

40 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

[1]  I assumed at first that the spelling mistake for "Rosalind" was the fault of the questioner, but as it's repeated through the whole response, it looks as if it was 'corrected' by the DHSC in that too.  Whether this is petty spitefulness and complete incompetence is, as so often with the DHSC, hard to tell.  But you'd think they would have known by now.

At least they didn't write "Ransom". (The second most annoying misspelling among the semi-functional illiterates on IOMN&P, only beaten by CM "Cannon".)

[wrighty]

1 hour ago, Sheldon said:

At least they didn't write "Ransom". (The second most annoying misspelling among the semi-functional illiterates on IOMN&P, only beaten by CM "Cannon".)

They're probably auto-corrects. But I agree - annoying that people don't check. 

[A fool and his money.....]

2 minutes ago, wrighty said:

They're probably auto-corrects. But I agree - annoying that people don't check. 

I think auto-correct is a bit like traffic lights. We've all kind of got used to it despite the fact that things would go wrong less often if it weren't there.

[Two-lane]

They searched on "Rosiland Ransom" and did not get any hits.

[Andy Onchan]

18 hours ago, Mercenary said:

It's hard to believe that the matter could not have been settled with RR for less than the quoted DHSC legal fees above, especially at the outset before the whistleblowing protection had been established.

 

To me the real shock in this case (after all employment issues will occur on a regular-ish basis in an org as large as IOMG) is that it was not settled at an early stage and resulted in the protracted tribunal process with large exposure for IOMG, and also reputational damage.

 

It's not clear whether that is a failure in the AGs advice or whether DHSC resisted this and wanted to have their day, but hopefully someone knows and steps have been taken to prevent similar happening in the future as the outcome probably costed 10x (with large reputational impact) what it should have had it been managed in an appropriate way for a government organisation. Has there been any follow up reviews published that have given more clues on the decision making in this area?

But don't forget there were Ministers also involved with this debacle as well. But I guess we'll never know who made the final decision to make a bad thing even worse. 

[Jarndyce]

18 hours ago, Mercenary said:

It's not clear whether that is a failure in the AGs advice or whether DHSC resisted this and wanted to have their day

Probably a COMIN decision in the end:  “bully boy”, face ‘em down tactics have worked in the past - clearly, they misjudged their opponent in this case.   DHSC were probably keen to proceed, as “bully boy” is a big part of their culture these days - but goodness knows what the AG advice was…I suspect nothing would have stopped COMIN from proceeding.

[Non-Believer]

Just now, Jarndyce said:

Probably a COMIN decision in the end:  “bully boy”, face ‘em down tactics have worked in the past - clearly, they misjudged their opponent in this case.   DHSC were probably keen to proceed, as “bully boy” is a big part of their culture these days - but goodness knows what the AG advice was…I suspect nothing would have stopped COMIN from proceeding.

And to give an indication of the level of intelligence involved, they then appealed it. That went well too...

[Roger Mexico]

41 minutes ago, Jarndyce said:

Probably a COMIN decision in the end:  “bully boy”, face ‘em down tactics have worked in the past - clearly, they misjudged their opponent in this case.   DHSC were probably keen to proceed, as “bully boy” is a big part of their culture these days - but goodness knows what the AG advice was…I suspect nothing would have stopped COMIN from proceeding.

I suspect it never went to CoMin, who would have been told they couldn't possibly interfere because they weren't supposed to have a say in personnel matters.  No doubt much discussed at CEO level though to general agreement that the sacred principle of people like them always being right couldn't possibly be  breached.

The AG's Office position seems to have been very passive.  Normally lawyers will at least warn their clients privately if they think something is doomed (indeed I think they are ethically supposed to).  You'd think lawyers working in the public sector should also consider the wider public interest as well.  But the AG's Office just seem to have gone along with whatever DHSC wanted.  As I said above they were involved from the start and much later than they should have been, despite the DHSC trying to deny this.

But the whole system has been set up so that those involved can do whatever they want and be protected.  Politicians are seen as a sort of decorative layer on top, like a constitutional monarchy.  Their powers are highly restricted and mostly ceremonial and the rest of the time they are just there to say and do what they are told.  Which suits most Manx politicians perfectly.