Hmmmm Posted July 27, 2023 Share Posted July 27, 2023 Well back to the three CEO's and Department to make their next move. I don't believe many people are comfortable on public money being used for such a spat to engage Callin Wild and the private fees they attract. I suspect the 3 CEO's would not push for a court hearing and this has been a heavy handed attempt to close the matter down. Alfs involvment speaks volumes about the manner in which his wholly inadequate administration conducts itself. Change is needed at the top. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted July 27, 2023 Share Posted July 27, 2023 One interesting thing about Moulton's report is the behaviour of Cannan in circulating a letter to all Tynwald members, claiming he knew nothing about it and that he approves anyway. Which is true makes him pathetically out of the loop (as Randall is one of the people behind it) and if false makes him dishonest. Why Cannan's letter went out is another matter. Moulton seems to think it was about sending him a 'message' but it's a rather roundabout way of doing so. More likely it's an attempt to frighten off Members from discussing it - no doubt as another case of pretend sub judice (obviously it can't be if there's no actual legal action). Moulton also said that the Callin Wild letter is also in the name of the DHSC as well as the three CEOs - so presumably it's the NHS who will be paying for this. Also it would be nice to know if Minister Hooper signed off on this or if, like the previous appeal, the CEO signed it off, using delegated powers (which in the previous case he didn't actually have). 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offshoremanxman Posted July 27, 2023 Share Posted July 27, 2023 1 minute ago, Roger Mexico said: Also it would be nice to know if Minister Hooper signed off on this or if, like the previous appeal, the CEO signed it off, using delegated powers (which in the previous case he didn't actually have). Hooper has said on Twitter that it was done under delegated powers and he had no prior knowledge. I’d be surprised if that’s a power that can be delegated but it’s worrying if it is. 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weliveinhope Posted July 27, 2023 Share Posted July 27, 2023 I dont know how how delegated powers work exactly, but recent evidence would suggest it allows the people behind the scenes to do exactly what they like. Given the fact that delegated powers and scandal seem to go hand in hand at the moment, perhaps AC should look at tightening up or removing altogether these powers. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weliveinhope Posted July 27, 2023 Share Posted July 27, 2023 4 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said: As I said I’d be surprised if the delegated powers of the Minister extend to the CEO being able to issue legal threats on behalf of the Dept / Minister without actually consulting the Minister. Particularly if they coincidentally relate to the alleged personal defamation of that Minister. Government has always posessed the ability to surprise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cissolt Posted July 27, 2023 Share Posted July 27, 2023 4 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said: As I said I’d be surprised if the delegated powers of the Minister extend to the CEO being able to issue legal threats on behalf of the Dept / Minister without actually consulting the Minister at any stage. Particularly if they coincidentally relate to the alleged personal defamation of that Minister. The power to issue said legal threats in behalf of other department CEOs is definitely not in their delegated power! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shake me up Judy Posted July 27, 2023 Share Posted July 27, 2023 Issuing SLAPP orders under 'delegated authority' (What a phrase that is) tells you all you need to know about who's running the Island. Clue: It isn't the politicians. Absolute F****** disgrace. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two-lane Posted July 27, 2023 Share Posted July 27, 2023 49 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said: Hooper has said on Twitter that it was done under delegated powers and he had no prior knowledge. A fast read of the entire Internet gives me the understanding that the Minister and the Civil Servant are one and the same when it comes to actions. A Minister can tell a Civil Servant "just get on with it" and allow that person to make whatever decisions are necessary. But the Minister is ultimately responsible for whatever actions he or she has delegated. Therefore it is strange that Hooper is giving the "nothing to do with me" response when, as the Minister, he is responsible for all actions taken - delegated or made directly himself. But, I could be wrong. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two-lane Posted July 27, 2023 Share Posted July 27, 2023 "However the Carltona doctrine is not really an implied delegation of authority. Rather, if the statute confers a power on a minister, and it is then delegated to a civil servant of sufficient seniority, the principle of ministerial responsibility maintains that the minister is still responsible for the acts of the civil servant. The civil servant is treated as the minister’s alter ego, and therefore any decisions are seen as those of the minister too. In that sense, there is not really a delegation of power, but rather devolution of power." In this case, the Civil Servant has not started legal proceedings on behalf of a department, but on behalf of the Minister. The Minister is responsible. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted July 27, 2023 Share Posted July 27, 2023 It is a long standing tenet that while you can delegate authority, you cannot delegate responsibility. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offshoremanxman Posted July 27, 2023 Share Posted July 27, 2023 (edited) 51 minutes ago, Two-lane said: The Minister is responsible. He isn’t saying that he isn’t responsible. Just that he wasn’t made aware in advance because of delegated authority. It’s the same basic claim that Callister made about the same department over Ranson and Callister then went further to question whether they had any delegated authority at all at the time as he hadn’t even signed the authority letter even if it did extend to delegating them powers to issue which isn’t just an “administrative function” normally covered by the delegation letter. Actually Hoopers stance then is hilarious considering what he’s claiming now it’s him. He clearly isn’t even clever enough to remember what he said last month to attack someone else. https://gef.im/news/politics/war-of-the-words-36241/ Edited July 27, 2023 by offshoremanxman 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two-lane Posted July 27, 2023 Share Posted July 27, 2023 So what about the Collective Responsibility of the Council of Ministers? Members are expected to collectively present a single view when questioned in public about a decision, no matter what was said in the meeting. Surely the same should apply here. Both Cannan and Hooper should have simply stated that "It was our decision", rather than "I knew nothing about it". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offshoremanxman Posted July 27, 2023 Share Posted July 27, 2023 (edited) 34 minutes ago, Two-lane said: So what about the Collective Responsibility of the Council of Ministers? Members are expected to collectively present a single view when questioned in public about a decision, no matter what was said in the meeting. Surely the same should apply here. Both Cannan and Hooper should have simply stated that "It was our decision", rather than "I knew nothing about it". Well Callisters claim in that Gef article linked above is interesting. As he claims that issuing legal action isn’t an “administrative function” that is covered by the delegation letter. So it might beg the question whether the DHSC CEO actually had the power to instruct Callin Wild if Hooper also claims that they did it without his consent or knowledge. So is the instruction to the lawyers even valid if Hooper says he didn’t know about it? …. or maybe Hooper is bullshitting as he claimed to Gef that they only acted in Callisters name over Ranson as they couldn’t find Callister on the day that the Minister was required to approve the action. So maybe Hooper was also having a “big poo” and couldn’t be found for a few hours when this needed his approval so they did it anyway? Edited July 27, 2023 by offshoremanxman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
english zloty Posted July 27, 2023 Share Posted July 27, 2023 You would anticipate that the Minister (the Department) lists the delegations to the CO (the accounting officer) which will be limited to Ministerial decisions which are of low consequence and/or business as usual. anything which might negatively impact the Department especially reputational damage, matters of policy or more specifically not business as usual requires Ministerial approval. If the Minister isn’t available then the decision isn’t taken. the officers should be presenting options for dealing with the situation. Including the risk, cost, time and impact of each. They may also recommend but not take the decision 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted July 27, 2023 Share Posted July 27, 2023 7 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said: Well Callisters claim in that Gef article linked above is interesting. As he claims that issuing legal action isn’t an “administrative function” that is covered by the delegation letter. So it might beg the question whether the DHSC CEO actually had the power to instruct Callin Wild if Hooper also claims that they did it without his consent or knowledge. So is the instruction to the lawyers even valid if Hooper says he didn’t know about it? Well quite. If delegated powers are mainly to be used to take urgent decisions when the Minister isn't available[1], why were they used here? Unlike with the appeal they couldn't claim urgency, I think there is a time limit for bringing defamation cases but this was against a recent email of Moulton's so the limit wasn't near and in any case no such action has been launched. And should the DHSC even be involved at all? Certainly in the UK public bodies can't sue for defamation and it would be interesting to know if there is any legal ability for them to be able to do so here. If there isn't an explicit one, I could see the Manx Courts throwing such an action out. [1] In any case Callister claimed he was available (and verifiably so) and in any case hadn't signed the delegation, so none of the delegated decision made in his time would have been legal. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.