General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

James Brown

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's exactly what his Department did do. They asked 'what delay, why' and they got more information on 10th July.



His Department knew about an issue for one person for a few weeks and started looking into it. Are you suggesting that every time a single test result goes missing, the Department need to report it to the minister? That's just silly

His Department asked for more information, and on the day they were informed about the scope of the problem and the number of women involved, they informed the Minister.

Not knowing what goes on in your own department despite your department kicking off an investigation regarding the IT glitch two weeks prior, writing to a lady on the ministers behalf, 800 patients involved and it being a national issue.

The HSE informed the Department of Health on June 25th that there was an IT issue

Mr Harris said he was only informed about the delay on July 10th, the same day that his department was also informed about the extent of it.

Incompetence or lies IMO.

AndrewJRenko

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Not knowing what goes on in your own department despite your department kicking off an investigation regarding the IT glitch two weeks prior, writing to a lady on the ministers behalf, 800 patients involved and it being a national issue.

Again, you seem to be confused about the single and plural.

The Department didn't know that 800 patients were involved until the HSE told them this. Prior to that, it had been a single issue for a single patient.

On the day the Department knew that 800 patients were involved, the Minister was informed.

Have you any idea how many reps come into the Minister's office each day? Certainly tens, if not hundreds. If you think it makes any sense to brief the Minister on every individual rep every time, there won't be a lot of time for the Minister to be Ministering.

James Brown

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Again, you seem to be confused about the single and plural.

The Department didn't know that 800 patients were involved until the HSE told them this. Prior to that, it had been a single issue for a single patient.

On the day the Department knew that 800 patients were involved, the Minister was informed.

Have you any idea how many reps come into the Minister's office each day? Certainly tens, if not hundreds. If you think it makes any sense to brief the Minister on every individual rep every time, there won't be a lot of time for the Minister to be Ministering.

I'm not. Also it makes no difference. They knew there was one or more delays dues to an IT glitch. The called for an investigation into it and wrote to one patient on the ministers behalf, two weeks before he said he was aware.

I agree, however this isn't the ongoing trolley crises, this is the ongoing cervical test crisis. Was kinda in the news. Did he know they were planing on making regional offices for the HSE or did he not get that memo before it was announced either? Do you think even one person in the office working on that might have been one of the ones aware of the IT glitch?
Any road. I find it hard to believe what Simon says. That's all.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I'm not. Also it makes no difference. They knew there was one or more delays dues to an IT glitch. The called for an investigation into it and wrote to one patient on the ministers behalf, two weeks before he said he was aware.

I agree, however this isn't the ongoing trolley crises, this is the ongoing cervical test crisis. Was kinda in the news. Did he know they were planing on making regional offices for the HSE or did he not get that memo before it was announced either? Do you think even one person in the office working on that might have been one of the ones aware of the IT glitch?
Any road. I find it hard to believe what Simon says. That's all.

Your posts seem to make it clear that you have no understanding of how public administration works.

AndrewJRenko said that there are tens maybe hundreds of reps coming into a Ministers' Office, he is wrong. Nowadays, because of email, there are thousands coming in on some days.

So people were aware of an IT glitch. Was it a one-off IT glitch that might affect one person? Until they were told it affected 800, they didn't know.

You have unrealistic expectations borne out of ignorance of public administration.

Look at this:

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2019-07-11/

There were 966 parliamentary questions in one day asked by TDs, many of which were pointless and repetitive. How much time did they waste from the working time of Ministers' Offices?


Have a look at this one:

"83. Deputy Jack Chambers asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the way in which he will respond to the issue of commuting pressure as outlined in the Public Service Pay Commission report as a driver to leave the Permanent Defence Force; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30569/19]"

What was the point of this question? Everyone has commuting pressure. Each PQ takes about 2-3 days of working time to answer. What a complete waste. Less time for dealing with the real issues.

Here is another one:

"Clare Daly
Question:
283. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the number of unmarked cars and vans attached to the Garda National Immigration Bureau in 2018 and to date in 2019, in tabular form."

What is the point in this question?

AndrewJRenko

Matt Barrett wrote: »

They knew there was one or more delays dues to an IT glitch. The called for an investigation into it and wrote to one patient on the ministers behalf, two weeks before he said he was aware.

Eh no, that's untrue. They knew there was one delay. Not one or more - just one delay. That's all they knew, so they went looking for more, and found them in July, and informed the Minister the same day.

blanch152

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Eh no, that's untrue. They knew there was one delay. Not one or more - just one delay. That's all they knew, so they went looking for more, and found them in July, and informed the Minister the same day.

I have often disagreed with you on other issues, but I must say you are hitting the nail on the head on this one.

lola85

Had it been established which party pays Matt Barrett to post here 24/7?

SF or FF?

Just asking sorry if it’s been answered before.

Dytalus

blanch152 wrote: »

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2019-07-11/

There were 966 parliamentary questions in one day asked by TDs, many of which were pointless and repetitive. How much time did they waste from the working time of Ministers' Offices?


Have a look at this one:

"83. Deputy Jack Chambers asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the way in which he will respond to the issue of commuting pressure as outlined in the Public Service Pay Commission report as a driver to leave the Permanent Defence Force; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30569/19]"

What was the point of this question? Everyone has commuting pressure. Each PQ takes about 2-3 days of working time to answer. What a complete waste. Less time for dealing with the real issues.

Just to clarify, however, the majority of this time isn't handled by the minister's office. Unless other departments operate very differently to the one I work in, PQs come in electronically and are disseminated to the whole department. The divisions that have relevant answers provide them and the Minister's office only writes up the response.

Not to say the Minister and his office aren't swamped. I am very close with one of the guys in our department minister's office and based on his (admittedly anecdotal evidence) they do get an enormous amount of emails. A lot aren't time consuming (Or even department related) but the office has very little staff so the volume is tough to handle.

BRYAN Is Ainm Dom

blanch152 wrote: »

Your posts seem to make it clear that you have no understanding of how public administration works.

AndrewJRenko said that there are tens maybe hundreds of reps coming into a Ministers' Office, he is wrong. Nowadays, because of email, there are thousands coming in on some days.

So people were aware of an IT glitch. Was it a one-off IT glitch that might affect one person? Until they were told it affected 800, they didn't know.

You have unrealistic expectations borne out of ignorance of public administration.

Look at this:

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2019-07-11/

There were 966 parliamentary questions in one day asked by TDs, many of which were pointless and repetitive. How much time did they waste from the working time of Ministers' Offices?


Have a look at this one:

"83. Deputy Jack Chambers asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the way in which he will respond to the issue of commuting pressure as outlined in the Public Service Pay Commission report as a driver to leave the Permanent Defence Force; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30569/19]"

What was the point of this question? Everyone has commuting pressure. Each PQ takes about 2-3 days of working time to answer. What a complete waste. Less time for dealing with the real issues.

Here is another one:

"Clare Daly
Question:
283. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the number of unmarked cars and vans attached to the Garda National Immigration Bureau in 2018 and to date in 2019, in tabular form."

What is the point in this question?

2-3 Days to answer a PQ??? Are you for real??? What kind of PQ takes 2-3 days to prepare.

Bit cynical

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The question is "Can you speak Irish?", and "If Yes, how often?". That does not seem vague to me, nor does it seem to indicate that one box is the "right" answer. I think it's a bit of a reach to suggest otherwise.

The issue you are having seems to be that they ask about frequency of use rather than geting an indication on the respondants fluency. I would agree that this is a weakness in the census data and fortunatly the next census in 2021 will address it by adding a question on fluency.

My landlord ticked the "Can you speak Irish" box because he passed ordinary level Irish in the Leaving Cert 30 years ago.

This is the problem. For many people knowing Irish means passing an exam in it. They don't know that they can't actually speak it because they haven't been in a situation where speaking Irish is needed and they have been found wanting.

The same people probably do know that they can't speak French, for example, because they know that there's a country called France and if they go there they can't understand the language being spoken. The criteria is different.

Irish is different in the respect that for a large section of the population it is purely a school subject and therefore knowing it means passing an exam.

AndrewJRenko

BRYAN Is Ainm Dom wrote: »

2-3 Days to answer a PQ??? Are you for real??? What kind of PQ takes 2-3 days to prepare.

Most of them. When you have to find the right person out of 300,000 public sector staff, that tends to take a little while.

James Brown

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Most of them. When you have to find the right person out of 300,000 public sector staff, that tends to take a little while.

Irrelevant if it took several months.
The point is Harris was unaware of what his own office was responding to a query on on his behalf.
You and blanch made this about how busy the office would be and turn around time etc.
The point that his office knew of this national issue of importance and he claims he didn't, until the day before the press released it is what I have issue with as I've clearly pointed out several times.
He was either unaware due to a poorly run department or he knew all along and only said he did because his hand was forced.

On that note, why are we still dealing with this substandard outfit? Apart from the initial mess they confound it and it always turns out to be much worse than initially announced.

Around 11,500 women were given out-of-date CervicalCheck smear tests, the Health Service Executive has said.
Quest Diagnostics, one of the laboratories hired to carry out testing, told the HSE last November that standard HPV tests had been carried out “outside of the manufacturer’s recommended timeframe”.
It was believed that the tests were likely to remain accurate even though they had expired, but the HSE said it recalled some women for a second test as a precaution.
Revealing the scale of the expired tests for the first time, the HSE said of the 11,500 identified, about 4,000 women were invited to attend their GP for a precautionary repeat cervical screening test.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/around-11-500-women-given-out-of-date-cervicalcheck-smear-tests-hse-1.3962922

Can we at least agree this contractor is incompetent or is there some old boy Fine Gael association I'm not aware of?

johnnyskeleton

lola85 wrote: »

Had it been established which party pays Matt Barrett to post here 24/7?

SF or FF?

Just asking sorry if it’s been answered before.

Mod note:

Just saw this now, so sorry for the late response. Posters are entitled to anonymity. You are free to ask them if they support another political party, but this kind of post is not acceptable.

Topgear on Dave

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Can we at least agree this contractor is incompetent or is there some old boy Fine Gael association I'm not aware of?

Surely it depends on why the kits were out of date, is it a manufacturer fault, the GPs fail, the HSE or the labs.

It's not clear to me.

James Brown

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Surely it depends on why the kits were out of date, is it a manufacturer fault, the GPs fail, the HSE or the labs.

It's not clear to me.

All I know is the buck would stop with the company, (on this and previous glitches) no? If you get a rotten sandwich would you complain to the cafe manager or ask the waiter for the number of their meat supplier?

Topgear on Dave

Matt Barrett wrote: »

All I know is the buck would stop with the company, (on this and previous glitches) no? If you get a rotten sandwich would you complain to the cafe manager or ask the waiter for the number of their meat supplier?

This is a terrible comparison and not what I mean at all.

This stuff is a bit more serious than supplying sandwiches.

James Brown

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

This is a terrible comparison and not what I mean at all.

This stuff is a bit more serious than supplying sandwiches.

Obviously the point is you deal with who you have the contract with.
If you hire a company and problems keep arising with them, would you keep using them?

Topgear on Dave

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Obviously the point is you deal with who you have the contract with.
If you hire a company and problems keep arising with them, would you keep using them?

Indeed, yes but my question was why the kits were out of date, is it a manufacturer fault, the GPs fault, the HSE or the labs.

It's not clear to me that the lab is the cause of the problem of out of date smears.

James Brown

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Indeed, yes but my question was why the kits were out of date, is it a manufacturer fault, the GPs fault, the HSE or the labs.

It's not clear to me that the lab is the cause of the problem of out of date smears.

This clarifies things:

The problem first arose in January after it was revealed that US laboratory Quest Diagnostics used an out-of-date test kit for HPV screening for the CervicalCheck screening programme.
https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0720/1064249-cervical-screening/

AndrewJRenko

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You and blanch made this about how busy the office would be and turn around time etc.
The point that his office knew of this national issue of importance and he claims he didn't, until the day before the press released it is what I have issue with as I've clearly pointed out several times.
He was either unaware due to a poorly run department or he knew all along and only said he did because his hand was forced.

His office knew of one issue for one person. Is this really 'an issue of national importance'?

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Irrelevant if it took several months.

That was an answer to a different question - about PQs

James Brown

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

His office knew of one issue for one person. Is this really 'an issue of national importance'?


That was an answer to a different question - about PQs

The PQ query related to turn around time excusing Harris' becoming woke as it were on the issue.
How many more do you require? The issue is a national one. Why are you playing it down?
His office knew there was some form of IT glitch. We know they responded to one query. We know they responded on behalf of Harris. We know a few weeks later the press released the story and Harris said he'd just found out.
You seem terribly hung up on the fact that I find these 'known' events troublesome and that I find it hard, based on these alleged facts to believe a word out of Simon or his departments mouth. That's it. He just seems to not have his eye on the ball, if that's the true, full story. What about my view on the reported 'facts' leads you to defend the minister and his office so vehemently? I'm curious. I see posts and threads I've little to no interest in or disagree with the posters conclusion without feeling the need to get on them over a period of days. What's your skin in this game? I don't know why we are still dealing with this company either.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The PQ query related to turn around time excusing Harris' becoming woke as it were on the issue.
How many more do you require? The issue is a national one. Why are you playing it down?
His office knew there was some form of IT glitch. We know they responded to one query. We know they responded on behalf of Harris. We know a few weeks later the press released the story and Harris said he'd just found out.
You seem terribly hung up on the fact that I find these 'known' events troublesome and that I find it hard, based on these alleged facts to believe a word out of Simon or his departments mouth. That's it. He just seems to not have his eye on the ball, if that's the true, full story. What about my view on the reported 'facts' leads you to defend the minister and his office so vehemently? I'm curious. I see posts and threads I've little to no interest in or disagree with the posters conclusion without feeling the need to get on them over a period of days. What's your skin in this game? I don't know why we are still dealing with this company either.

The reason people react to your views is that they are disconnected from reality and unrelated to the facts.

The facts are this:

(1) Query from one individual came in to Minister's Office
(2) Minister's Office raised issue with HSE
(3) HSE came back and told Minister's Office that there was an IT glitch
(4) Minister's Office asked how many were affected
(5) HSE said a lot.
(6) Minister was told.

Your complaint seems to be that the Minister wasn't told after (1). Well, the reality is that hundreds, sometimes thousands of queries come into Department's every day and every week. If the Minister was told about every single one, then he wouldn't have time to sleep or eat, let alone do any other
work.

To me the above sequence from (1) to (6) makes perfect sense and it reflects the reality of any large organisation.

If there was a problem, then the problem may have occurred at (3) as the HSE may have been economical with the truth. However, they may just have discovered the IT glitch as a result of the complaint and needed to investigate themselves. We don't know at this stage.

AndrewJRenko

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The PQ query related to turn around time excusing Harris' becoming woke as it were on the issue.
How many more do you require? The issue is a national one. Why are you playing it down?
His office knew there was some form of IT glitch.

His office knew that one person reported getting no test result. Does one person not getting a test result constitute 'an issue of national importance' for you?

James Brown

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

His office knew that one person reported getting no test result. Does one person not getting a test result constitute 'an issue of national importance' for you?

No it does not. The issue itself is of national importance. A query regarding a patients concerns regarding an issue of national importance, that being the company's skewed results, using outdated tests, the IT glitch, all relating to the same issue of national importance. If you don't see that, that's fine but you're not the Dept of Health or the minister for Health.

Again, what's your beef with my conclusion that I find it hard to believe Harris? You seem to disagree, which is fine, but you're putting an awful lot of energy into it, why?

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

No it does not. The issue itself is of national importance. A query regarding a patients concerns regarding an issue of national importance, that being the company's skewed results, using outdated tests, the IT glitch, all relating to the same issue of national importance. If you don't see that, that's fine but you're not the Dept of Health or the minister for Health.

Again, what's your beef with my conclusion that I find it hard to believe Harris? You seem to disagree, which is fine, but you're putting an awful lot of energy into it, why?

"Hey, Minister, someone on the phone says she didn't get her test result"

"Thanks, don't bother checking with the HSE in case it is a communications issue such as wrong name or address or even a computer glitch, let's just call in the National Medical Emergency Committee and spend the next twelve hours working on this"

"Oh, ok, Minister, someone else on the phone from the HSE about 100 medical card applications being mixed up"

"Don't worry about that, it's not an issue of national importance as judged by the lads on the boards threads. We have to get on top of the single missing test result."

Seriously, Matt, does it take really poor parody to show up how distant from reality your outrage on this issue is?

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

"Hey, Minister, someone on the phone says she didn't get her test result"

"Thanks, don't bother checking with the HSE in case it is a communications issue such as wrong name or address or even a computer glitch, let's just call in the National Medical Emergency Committee and spend the next twelve hours working on this"

"Oh, ok, Minister, someone else on the phone from the HSE about 100 medical card applications being mixed up"

"Don't worry about that, it's not an issue of national importance as judged by the lads on the boards threads. We have to get on top of the single missing test result."

Seriously, Matt, does it take really poor parody to show up how distant from reality your outrage on this issue is?

I didn't bother responding to you last post and your quality of discussion has degenerated further with this.
You insist on defending every aspect of this FG government. It's tiresome and not believable as genuine unbiased commentary. That's what you do regardless of the issue. That's fine but pointless in dealing with you. I am not calling you a FG supporter. I would not personally insult you in such a manner. Just calling it as it is.
I've a genuine lack of faith in Harris or any minister who 'didn't know' or 'just found out' what their department knew or had being dealing with for some time. You should really take that with a pinch of salt if you disagree but both yourself and Andrew are like dogs with a bone, which I would find very odd from any casual folk.

Imreoir2

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I didn't bother responding to you last post and your quality of discussion has degenerated further with this.
You insist on defending every aspect of this FG government. It's tiresome and not believable as genuine unbiased commentary. That's what you do regardless of the issue. That's fine but pointless in dealing with you. I am not calling you a FG supporter. I would not personally insult you in such a manner. Just calling it as it is.
I've a genuine lack of faith in Harris or any minister who 'didn't know' or 'just found out' what their department knew or had being dealing with for some time. You should really take that with a pinch of salt if you disagree but both yourself and Andrew are like dogs with a bone, which I would find very odd from any casual folk.

It's not about defending every single aspect of anything. It's about recognising the realities of public administration. Actions have costs, focusing on one issue in a disproportionate way as you think should have happened would have consequences elsewhere.

James Brown

Imreoir2 wrote: »

It's not about defending every single aspect of anything. It's about recognising the realities of public administration. Actions have costs, focusing on one issue in a disproportionate way as you think should have happened would have consequences elsewhere.

You are reading what others have posted into my comments.
I think if a department has information on a subject of national importance and sends correspondence of behalf of the health minister, the minister should know what's in the letter and why, especially if it's only one letter. Less time. Also do these people not talk to each other during the work day? I can't see how it wouldn't come up in conversation even. 'Y'know that thing people were calling for your resignation over? Turns out this woman has a delay due to some mystery issue. Also FYI thousands of women were given out of date tests". That's my take. Therefore I find it hard to believe anything Simon says.

Chips Lovell

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Mod note:

Just saw this now, so sorry for the late response. Posters are entitled to anonymity. You are free to ask them if they support another political party, but this kind of post is not acceptable.

Since this mod warning is being ignored we’ve started handing out cards.

AndrewJRenko

Matt Barrett wrote: »

No it does not. The issue itself is of national importance. A query regarding a patients concerns regarding an issue of national importance, that being the company's skewed results, using outdated tests, the IT glitch, all relating to the same issue of national importance. If you don't see that, that's fine but you're not the Dept of Health or the minister for Health.

Great, so we've confirmed that the issue they were dealing with in June was not an issue of national importance. It was an issue with one person. They did due diligence investigation, and found it to be a much larger, much more important issue. They informed the Minister of this on the same day in July.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Again, what's your beef with my conclusion that I find it hard to believe Harris? You seem to disagree, which is fine, but you're putting an awful lot of energy into it, why?

I'm no fan of FG or Harris. I'd have given FG low preferences in recent elections to keep the real crazies out, but that's it. I've no skin in this game, and I'm putting far less energy into the discussion than your good self.

I just don't like to see cheap shots on exaggerated issues.