Irish Water

DuckHook

listermint wrote: »

All my suspicions have been confirmed so far, I was skeptical at first and quite rightly.

Cloak and Dagger, Bad CEO Choice, County Managers involved at various levels despite the lack of open and thorough interview process. Ah sure theres a swill of money going around we'll pay for the tab.

Another cross over quango for transition phase...no doubt that one will be hard to kill off.

On and then on to allowances, perks, and the famous Irishism 'Entitlements'


I urge EVERYONE here to contact their local TDs and inform them what you plan on doing the next GE make sure they are clear on your intentions and the reasons why.


We'll end up here with the HSE mark II. And sure arent our health services world class like.

But according to some posters on here we are just idiots and cant comprehend the work going on so its better to say nothing and leave the lads to get on with the trojan work.

Its a joke.. plain and simple and i bet John tierny is regretting going onto the radio and forgetting to say nothing when he had the chance.

listermint

There are various shills on this forum. They come in many guises.

Rightwing

The country really is a banana republic, people going out doing 12 hour days and their cash is going to some county manager who can just about read the The Mirror.

rodento

What I don't understand is why irish water hired new staff if existing employees of the local authorities were transferring over anyway

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/irish-water-to-seek-voluntary-redundancies-1.1669427

Especially when a lot of the new employes hired either got early retirement from the local authorities or availed of voluntary redundancy from same

Doesn't add up

spank_inferno

rodento wrote: »

What I don't understand is why irish water hired new staff if existing employees of the local authorities were transferring over anyway

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/irish-water-to-seek-voluntary-redundancies-1.1669427

Especially when a lot of the new employes hired either got early retirement from the local authorities or availed of voluntary redundancy from same

Doesn't add up

I think the new staff are mostly to manage the Cork call centre?

The problem comes from taking all the water staff of 30-ish local authorities without having a compulsory redundancy scheme in place immediately.

However our union friends, prohibited any CR.

rodento

spank_inferno wrote: »

I think the new staff are mostly to manage the Cork call centre?

The problem comes from taking all the water staff of 30-ish local authorities without having a compulsory redundancy scheme in place immediately.

However our union friends, prohibited any CR.

Than how do you explain this

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/irish-water-staff-already-on-local-authority-pensions-dáil-told-1.1663133

Taoiseach Enda Kenny has declined to confirm that retired local authority employees awarded lump sums and pensions have been hired at a senior level in Irish Water.

Local authority staff have already availed of early retirement schemes etc to take up posts with irish water

spank_inferno

rodento wrote: »

Than how do you explain this

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/irish-water-staff-already-on-local-authority-pensions-dáil-told-1.1663133

Taoiseach Enda Kenny has declined to confirm that retired local authority employees awarded lump sums and pensions have been hired at a senior level in Irish Water.

Local authority staff have already availed of early retirement schemes etc to take up posts with irish water

I don't know mate, I ain't in charge of Irish Water.

Why don't you ask them yourself??

Better use of your time than venting impotently on this site.

Rightwing

spank_inferno wrote: »

I don't know mate, I ain't in charge of Irish Water.

Why don't you ask them yourself??

Better use of your time than venting impotently on this site.

I seriously doubt that, probably be waiting for 30 mins, after pressing this button to talk to this dept, another button to talk to soneone else.

KOTSC

Remember that Irish Water are employing DOUBLE the amount of employees needed. But that is no problem, they have an open chequebook, money is no object. So why employ four men to look into a hole when you can employ EIGHT. Expenses... generous mileage ... not a problem. The people of Ireland are expected foot the bill and will pay whatever they're told by Big Phil & John "Consultants" Tierney.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=639821252742248&set=a.132907473433631.21260.109225552468490&type=1&theater

Phoebas

Aren't they now employing pretty much the same numbers that have always been employed in the provision of water services? Why the sudden uproar?

rodento

Phoebas wrote: »

Aren't they now employing pretty much the same numbers that have always been employed in the provision of water services? Why the sudden uproar?

Because in addition to the existing local authority staff, they hired recently retired staff and those who went on voluntary redundancy.

You have to ask your self why the additional staff is required if all they needed was to transfer existing ones

Rightwing

rodento wrote: »

Because in addition to the existing local authority staff, they hired recently retired staff and those who went on voluntary redundancy.

You have to ask your self why the additional staff is required if all they needed was to transfer existing ones

Give the boys a few more pensions and bonuses

Phoebas

rodento wrote: »

Because in addition to the existing local authority staff, they hired recently retired staff and those who went on voluntary redundancy.

You have to ask your self why the additional staff is required if all they needed was to transfer existing ones

I thought that most of the staff that were hired directly by Irish Water were ex local authority staff that left their LAs and joined Irish Water.
So Irish Water is pretty much made up of ex LA staff (directly employed) and existing LA staff (on SLAs). The net numbers are pretty similar, except now we have some prospect of them being reduced over time.

I get that people would be pissed off that we're employing more than are necessary, but that situation didn't come into being just this morning.

Icepick

It all comes down to the so called industrial peace AKA sponging off tax payers.

gandalf

Unbelievable, they really take the taxpayers of this country as complete and utter patsies.

If any other business merges there are rationalisations. Instead we have a company that needs 1700 employees with 4300 workers. The people leading this country in Government and at the head of the Public Services give incompetents a bad name!

rodento

I'm wrong on the voluntary redundancy front

7. Staff taking up employment in Irish Water are not entitled to avail of the voluntary redundancy scheme.

http://www.corkcoco.ie/co/pdf/739808968.doc

But not on retirement / early retirement front

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/irish-water-employs-excouncil-chiefs-on-big-pensions-29942490.html

TWO former local authority managers in receipt of lucrative pensions have been employed by Irish Water.

golfwallah

It has to be a matter of great concern to the Irish taxpayer that momentous decisions like the setting up of Irish Water, with all its associated long term costs and implications, are made in a way that is almost “behind closed doors”, as far as the general public are concerned.

Right from the start, there has been a great deal of discussion, communication and debate among just a section of the stakeholders involved, i.e. ”insiders” - government, civil service, local authority management and the unions. The only stakeholders left out of this merry go round are representatives of the taxpayer, who will end up paying for it all.

This massive communications gap is now partly being filled by the PAC in the form of shock / horror revelations being drip fed to us on an almost daily basis, but all after the event, when there is little that can be done about it.

There must be a better way of doing business, so the taxpayer and all citizens can be kept much better informed about what is going on – before such costly, strategic decisions are made.

This emphasis on “state of the art” but one sided communication amongst “insiders”, whom have most to gain from the change, at the expense of the general public, who have to pay for it, cannot be regarded as being transparent or good for democracy.

Sure, there is some semblance of communication to the general public on the websites of the Department and Irish Water – but you need to be computer literate and it takes an age to find and read through reams of detail – let alone try to figure out the key assumptions around costs, etc.

For example, if you look at the Department’s website - not the easiest to find your way around -http://www.environ.ie/en/Environment/Water/, you will eventually find a link to “Water Sector Reform – Implementation Strategy, published Department of Environment, Community & Local Government on 12 Oct 2012”:
http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/Environment/Water/FileDownLoad,32001,en.pdf
This is where the principles around staff transfers, etc are “buried”:

Due to the complexity and scale of the people transition issues, a highly collaborative approach between the Local Authorities, Department, Irish Water and Unions/staff representatives will be essential. Existing channels for engaging with staff will be utilised to their fullest extent along with any additional structures that might be required. In the case of local authority staff, the main vehicle will be the relevant sectoral group established under the Croke Park Agreement in local authorities – the Local Authority Implementation Committee.

Objectives & Approach
This work-stream will have responsibility for driving and supporting internal stakeholder engagement and change management initiatives. This work-stream is focussed on the work over circa the next eighteen months, to ensure:
• the development and support of a clearly defined communication and engagement plan for the interim and transition phases;
• developing a framework to deal with human resources issues arising from a local authority and Departmental staffing perspective on the establishment of Irish Water as the water services authority (arising during the transition phase)

No wonder, even Labour Junior Minister, Sean Sherlock, is

fuming at Irish Water “sweetheart deal” revelations

, made under the watch of his own party and coalition partners in government: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/minister-fuming-at-irish-water-sweetheart-deal-revelations-29953542.html

noodler

From a purely, technical standpoint: Has anyone taken a stab at how these savings add up? Is that Prof John Fitzgerald ESRI report available?

1) Prof Fitzgerald argues an extra 2bn in staff costs by 2026

2) But Irish Water say an extra 2bn in savings by 2021.

I am a little confused about point (2): I thought that the provision of Water cost the Exchequer 1.2bn (2010).

So by 2021 (i.e. 8 full years) I would have thought that amounted to gross savings of 8 X 1.2bn = 9.6bn.

Now, I am purely back of the envelope here and I admit it but lets deduct setup costs of 180m which are well established fromr recent controversies, I think they have to borrow 700m for water metreing as well, and hell lets deduct another 2bn for excess staff costs and we come to a figure of nearly 3bn.

So, I am not suggesting any huge conspiracy, just wondering what I am missing in terms of the missing when I calculate there should be exchequer savings of 6.6bn and Irish water say 2bn by 2021.

aliveandkicking

Phoebas wrote: »

I thought that most of the staff that were hired directly by Irish Water were ex local authority staff that left their LAs and joined Irish Water.
So Irish Water is pretty much made up of ex LA staff (directly employed) and existing LA staff (on SLAs). The net numbers are pretty similar, except now we have some prospect of them being reduced over time.

I get that people would be pissed off that we're employing more than are necessary, but that situation didn't come into being just this morning.

Great point that seems to have been missed in the media sh*tstorm. Right now and for the last god knows how many years there has been over 4000 working on water services in this country. Setting up Irish Water as a national utility will provide the opportunity to rationalise this number significantly down towards the 2000. This won't happen overnight but it will happen gradually over the next decade. I don't see how it can be a quick fix, If Irish Water didn't take on these 4000 water workers and instead only took the 2000 that is claimed they need, the other 2000 would be redeployed and remain in the local authority system until retirement - i.e. taxpayer still paying their wages. If all 2000 were made redundant tomorrow morning the taxpayer would be on the hook for the redundancy payment immediately followed by the social welfare payments many of them would go on to claim. (I think it was mentioned on Prime Time the other night that many of the 4000 water workers are over 50 and would therefore be unlikely to gain new employment before retirement)

creedp

aliveandkicking wrote: »

If Irish Water didn't take on these 4000 water workers and instead only took the 2000 that is claimed they need, the other 2000 would be redeployed and remain in the local authority system until retirement - i.e. taxpayer still paying their wages. If all 2000 were made redundant tomorrow morning the taxpayer would be on the hook for the redundancy payment immediately followed by the social welfare payments many of them would go on to claim. (I think it was mentioned on Prime Time the other night that many of the 4000 water workers are over 50 and would therefore be unlikely to gain new employment before retirement)

Who's going to be paying their wages in Irish Water?

noodler

aliveandkicking wrote: »

Great point that seems to have been missed in the media sh*tstorm. Right now and for the last god knows how many years there has been over 4000 working on water services in this country. Setting up Irish Water as a national utility will provide the opportunity to rationalise this number significantly down towards the 2000. This won't happen overnight but it will happen gradually over the next decade. I don't see how it can be a quick fix, If Irish Water didn't take on these 4000 water workers and instead only took the 2000 that is claimed they need, the other 2000 would be redeployed and remain in the local authority system until retirement - i.e. taxpayer still paying their wages. If all 2000 were made redundant tomorrow morning the taxpayer would be on the hook for the redundancy payment immediately followed by the social welfare payments many of them would go on to claim. (I think it was mentioned on Prime Time the other night that many of the 4000 water workers are over 50 and would therefore be unlikely to gain new employment before retirement)

Great point - lets give all the unemployed jobs in Irish Water - sure it'll save us money!

aliveandkicking

creedp wrote: »

Who's going to be paying their wages in Irish Water?

The same as who is paying their wages now while they're employed by local authorities - you and me. The point I'm trying to make is they are already public sector employees and no matter what you do with them now the taxpayer still has to pay for them. If they stay with local authorities they get redeployed to other jobs, if they get taken on by irish water they continue doing what they currently do, if they get made redundant the taxpayer is liable for their redundancy payements and subsequent social welfare claims. There is no quick easy fix.

If there was no Irish Water set up the status quo would continue and would go on forever with the inefficient 4000 staff providing water services. Setting up Irish Water can only be a good thing efficiency wise but it will take time.

aliveandkicking

noodler wrote: »

Great point - lets give all the unemployed jobs in Irish Water - sure it'll save us money!

The people under discussion here are not unemployed though are they. What would you do with them?

creedp

aliveandkicking wrote: »

The same as who is paying their wages now while they're employed by local authorities - you and me. The point I'm trying to make is they are already public sector employees and no matter what you do with them now the taxpayer still has to pay for them. If they stay with local authorities they get redeployed to other jobs, if they get taken on by irish water they continue doing what they currently do, if they get made redundant the taxpayer is liable for their redundancy payements and subsequent social welfare claims. There is no quick easy fix.

If there was no Irish Water set up the status quo would continue and would go on forever with the inefficient 4000 staff providing water services. Setting up Irish Water can only be a good thing efficiency wise but it will take time.

Well maybe if they were redeployed within the local authorities they might do something which is actually productive rather than hanging around unproductively in IW. If the premise is that IW id 50% overstaffed then it could be argued that staff or working at 50% capacity .. some of these guys would be better off fixing potholes or clearing drains for the local authorities .. given that they are being paid by the taxpayer in any case.

aliveandkicking

creedp wrote: »

Well maybe if they were redeployed within the local authorities they might do something which is actually productive rather than hanging around unproductively in IW. If the premise is that IW id 50% overstaffed then it could be argued that staff or working at 50% capacity .. some of these guys would be better off fixing potholes or clearing drains for the local authorities .. given that they are being paid by the taxpayer in any case.

Completely agree, I would be of the opinion that Irish Water taking them on is the worst of the three options but it suits all parties concerned except for the taxpayer. The local authorities want them off their books, the government wants them off the public sector employment numbers (Irish Water is a commercial semi state and won't count in public sector employment figures) and the workers themselves will probably be delighted to be paid for an ever decreasing amount of work.

DuckHook

aliveandkicking wrote: »

Completely agree, I would be of the opinion that Irish Water taking them on is the worst of the three options but it suits all parties concerned except for the taxpayer. The local authorities want them off their books, the government wants them off the public sector employment numbers (Irish Water is a commercial semi state and won't count in public sector employment figures) and the workers themselves will probably be delighted to be paid for an ever decreasing amount of work.

Sad part is the government and the unions seem to think that is an acceptable resolution and all parties signed up to this.

People getting paid to do no work..public sector "reform" at work.

Icepick

Another organization corrupted by Public Service culture.
Large bonuses promised for doing your job, huge overemployment which they don't hesitate to describe as an act of charity, chaotic communication with their customers...

nice_guy80

Soooooo €40 million + spent on this quango yet they are outsourcing aspects of the business, including call centres.
I'd say maintenance will be next.

What will they actually be employing their own people to do, to collect their bonuses?

Tiger Mcilroy

Icepick wrote: »

Another organization corrupted by Public Service culture.
Large bonuses promised for doing your job, huge overemployment which they don't hesitate to describe as an act of charity, chaotic communication with their customers...

I would contend that there are very few people doing any sort of job inside irish water and bonuses should not be paid for installing meters badly then miscommunicating all information.

Enda and the lads can try and deflect the attention onto gerry adams all they like but this aint going away.

meglome

Tiger Mcilroy wrote: »

I would contend that there are very few people doing any sort of job inside irish water and bonuses should not be paid for installing meters badly then miscommunicating all information.

Do the meter installers work for Irish Water. I didn't think so. And who says the meters have been installed badly?

Tiger Mcilroy

meglome wrote: »

Do the meter installers work for Irish Water. I didn't think so. And who says the meters have been installed badly?

When is somebody installing a water meter on behalf of irish water outside your home not a representative of irish water?..i cant go any further with you i dont have the patience and try to avoid yellow cards.

Water meters installed with no due diligence done to detect any leaks to the very pipes they are connecting them to is absurd and imo bad practice from the outset.

meglome

Tiger Mcilroy wrote: »

When is somebody installing a water meter on behalf of irish water outside your home not a representative of irish water?..i cant go any further with you i dont have the patience and try to avoid yellow cards.

Water meters installed with no due diligence done to detect any leaks to the very pipes they are connecting them to is absurd and imo bad practice from the outset.

Of course they are representing Irish Water but they don't work for Irish Water. Your complained about bonuses for people who don't get them as they don't work for Irish Water.

Where are you getting your information that the meters are being installed badly?

Tiger Mcilroy

meglome wrote: »

Of course they are representing Irish Water but they don't work for Irish Water. You complained about bonuses for people who don't get them as they don't work for Irish Water.

Where are you getting your information that the meters are being installed badly?

Are you suggesting that the installation of meters wont be used as an indicator for staff and management on the overall peformance of irish water when bonuses are being calculated.

You can have your pedantic point about installers both working on behalf of irish water and not working on behalf of irish water but not getting bonuses.

Explain how installing a metering device without any due dilligence done to ascertain the level of water being used or if there are leaks is not bad practice. The meter can be installed as per the instructions but whats the point if they dont have any idea whats its metering and have to pull it up and redo the work?

FreudianSlippers

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Soooooo €40 million + spent on this quango yet they are outsourcing aspects of the business, including call centres.
I'd say maintenance will be next.

What will they actually be employing their own people to do, to collect their bonuses?

Considering we previously spent €700m per annum on administration of water services in the Local Authorities, €40m is a huge reduction in that amount. I'd be perfectly happy for UÉ to outsource call centres if it meant a saving could be made.

Companies still require staff internally to manage call centre contracts and manage the customer service element of the business.

Tiger Mcilroy wrote: »

When is somebody installing a water meter on behalf of irish water outside your home not a representative of irish water?..i cant go any further with you i dont have the patience and try to avoid yellow cards.

I presume by your comment that you have seen the contract between UÉ and GMC Sierra. So tell us this, is it a contract for services or a contract of services? Is there an agency agreement? What's in the liability clause? Termination clause?

Oh... you haven't a bull's notion what you're on about? Thought so.

Water meters installed with no due diligence done to detect any leaks to the very pipes they are connecting them to is absurd and imo bad practice from the outset.

It makes more sense to actually deal with the leaks on a case-by-case basis IMO. Why check all pipes for leaks when you can detect them once meters are installed? Hence the "first fix free" policy on the property side of the meter.

Tiger Mcilroy

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I presume by your comment that you have seen the contract between UÉ and GMC Sierra. So tell us this, is it a contract for services or a contract of services? Is there an agency agreement? What's in the liability clause? Termination clause?

Oh... you haven't a bull's notion what you're on about? Thought so.


It makes more sense to actually deal with the leaks on a case-by-case basis IMO. Why check all pipes for leaks when you can detect them once meters are installed? Hence the "first fix free" policy on the property side of the meter.

Well done.

You presume correctly i of course have not seen the contract of services and this is an absurd point but like the other poster you can take my comment out of context and use the opportunity to make some pedantic point for thanks. I was of course speaking in general terms about meters being installed by irish water and bonuses not in particular the contractors and you know this quite rightly.

It makes much more sense IMO to determine if there are leaks ahead of time and saving doing the same work twice.

nice_guy80

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Considering we previously spent €700m per annum on administration of water services in the Local Authorities, €40m is a huge reduction in that amount. I'd be perfectly happy for UÉ to outsource call centres if it meant a saving could be made.

Companies still require staff internally to manage call centre contracts and manage the customer service element of the business.


I presume by your comment that you have seen the contract between UÉ and GMC Sierra. So tell us this, is it a contract for services or a contract of services? Is there an agency agreement? What's in the liability clause? Termination clause?

Oh... you haven't a bull's notion what you're on about? Thought so.


It makes more sense to actually deal with the leaks on a case-by-case basis IMO. Why check all pipes for leaks when you can detect them once meters are installed? Hence the "first fix free" policy on the property side of the meter.

where's that figure of €700 million coming from?

FreudianSlippers

nice_guy80 wrote: »

where's that figure of €700 million coming from?

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/stephen-kinsella/irish-water-tells-us-we-are-consumers-and-we-know-we-are-being-sold-a-pup-30679954.html

Source: Department of the Environment (http://goo.gl/6dC7Hf - warning this is an auto-downloading doc)

creedp

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/stephen-kinsella/irish-water-tells-us-we-are-consumers-and-we-know-we-are-being-sold-a-pup-30679954.html

Source: Department of the Environment (http://goo.gl/6dC7Hf - warning this is an auto-downloading doc)

How much water has IW supplied to-date? How can equate the €700m cost associated with delivering water across the country's public water infrastructure to the set up costs of IW. I'm not saying there won't be savings in the €700m figure but really €700m -v- €40m?

FreudianSlippers

creedp wrote: »

How much water has IW supplied to-date? How can equate the €700m cost associated with delivering water across the country's public water infrastructure to the set up costs of IW. I'm not saying there won't be savings in the €700m figure but really €700m -v- €40m?

It's likely we won't know for at least 2 years IMO. It's like trying out your shopping at Aldi instead of Tesco: it may look better on paper, but it's not until you give it a go 'til you see if it really is cheaper.

farniel

Hi there. Does anyone know what the projected costs of the water meter installations will be once completed? I've been looking at the Department of Environment figures for Irish Water but this one isn't mentioned as far as I can see.

BoJack Horseman

farniel wrote: »

Hi there. Does anyone know what the projected costs of the water meter installations will be once completed? I've been looking at the Department of Environment figures for Irish Water but this one isn't mentioned as far as I can see.

I've seen figures of approx €560m for meter installations.
(That may/may not include the €180m IW setup costs though).

KarKea

I am awaiting a response from Irish water.
I have questions.
1) Where and when were the water meters made?
2) Are they direct from the manufacturer or have they been pre-owned?
3)Who is responsible for their calibration?
4)What level of non ionizing radiation is emitted?
5)Who have they received guidance from in relation to the effects of that radiation on past and present cancer patients?



Not much to ask when citizens are pressured to buy a product.

aliveandkicking

KarKea wrote: »

I am awaiting a response from Irish water.
I have questions.
1) Where and when were the water meters made?
2) Are they direct from the manufacturer or have they been pre-owned?
3)Who is responsible for their calibration?
4)What level of non ionizing radiation is emitted?
5)Who have they received guidance from in relation to the effects of that radiation on past and present cancer patients?



Not much to ask when citizens are pressured to buy a product.

15 seconds browsing the Irish Water website brought me to this information:

http://www.water.ie/docs/Irish-Water-Meters-and-AMR-technology-English-08082014.pdf

This should answer questions 4 and 5 for you.

In relation to question 2 I would be almost certain that the meters are brand new as I very much doubt there would be over a million and a half second hand water meters readily available to supply the whole country.

I can't help with Q1 and Q3 I'm afraid.

FreudianSlippers

That document also states that the meters were "manufactured by Itron and Diehl", so I'm guessing the US and Germany.

mariaalice

I think Irish water should a public not for profit organisation and therefore it could be as efficient as a private enterprise and be in public ownership, not a semi state company. If they did generate any profit it would be refunded as a rebate to the consumer.

Rightwing

mariaalice wrote: »

I think Irish water should a public not for profit organisation and therefore it could be as efficient as a private enterprise and be in public ownership, not a semi state company. If they did generate any profit it would be refunded as a rebate to the consumer.

It couldn't. Not answerable to anyone.

mariaalice

Rightwing wrote: »

It couldn't. Not answerable to anyone.

It would have a board of directors who would be answerable and they would have performance targets which would have to be met, service level agreements if they didn't meet them their contract would not be renewed.

Rightwing

mariaalice wrote: »

It would have a board of directors who would be answerable and they would have performance targets which would have to be met, service level agreements if they didn't meet them their contract would not be renewed.

Great in theory, dreadful in practice. You'd end up with a situation where the directors would be on €500K+ , who in turn for that would bury their head in the sand.

FreudianSlippers

mariaalice wrote: »

It would have a board of directors who would be answerable and they would have performance targets which would have to be met, service level agreements if they didn't meet them their contract would not be renewed.

Um, semi-state bodies have a board and a CEO and are accountable to the shareholders, the government.

mariaalice

Rightwing wrote: »

Great in theory, dreadful in practice. You'd end up with a situation where the directors would be on €500K+ , who in turn for that would bury their head in the sand.

If that is the case how do they run large hospital trusts in the UK, there are different ways of doing things if your look around.