Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

State Claims Agency accountability.

Options
  • 25-07-2020 9:22pm
    #1
    political analyst
    Registered Users Posts: 4,560 ✭✭✭


    After Leo Varadkar said on the Today programme on RTÉ Radio 1 that the decision to appeal the High Court judgement in the Ruth Morrissey case was made not by politicians but by the State Claims Agency (SCA), Vicky Phelan described that on Twitter as BS.

    In an article to be published in the Sunday Independent this weekend, Vicky questions the accountability of the SCA, as far as I know.

    Why didn't Varadkar, when he was Taoiseach, tell the SCA not to appeal the High Court judgement in Ruth's case? If he couldn't, then why couldn't he? After all, the SCA is supposed to be subordinate to the Cabinet, isn't it?!


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Miike
    Registered Users Posts: 2,021 ✭✭✭Miike


    political analyst wrote: »
    After Leo Varadkar said on the Today programme on RTÉ Radio 1 that the decision to appeal the High Court judgement in the Ruth Morrissey case was made not by politicians but by the State Claims Agency (SCA), Vicky Phelan described that on Twitter as BS.

    In an article to be published in the Sunday Independent this weekend, Vicky questions the accountability of the SCA, as far as I know.

    Why didn't Varadkar, when he was Taoiseach, tell the SCA not to appeal the High Court judgement in Ruth's case? If he couldn't, then why couldn't he? After all, the SCA is supposed to be subordinate to the Cabinet, isn't it?!

    They are legally entitled to and tasked with claims and cost management. They don't bow to anyone outside of that. The NTMA have a pretty good website too, if you're interested in the intricate details of how they operate.


  • Options
    #3
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,438 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    I heard a story about ACC, the former state-owned bank. Ministers, I was informed, would habitually interfere in debt management. If someone owed the bank lots of money and was behind in their payments, but were politically connected, it wasn't a problem.

    Ministers, let alone taoisigh, should have no role in such day-to-day matters of state organisations.

    If you want certain deserving cases dealt with differently, then get the law changed. But realise that in changing the law, you will also be changing it for less deserving cases.


  • Options
    #4
    political analyst
    Registered Users Posts: 4,560 ✭✭✭political analyst


    Victor wrote: »
    I heard a story about ACC, the former state-owned bank. Ministers, I was informed, would habitually interfere in debt management. If someone owed the bank lots of money and was behind in their payments, but were politically connected, it wasn't a problem.
    Ministers, let alone taoisigh, should have no role in such day-to-day matters of state organisations.
    That doesn't sound democratic.
    Victor wrote: »
    If you want certain deserving cases dealt with differently, then get the law changed. But realise that in changing the law, you will also be changing it for less deserving cases.

    What could these less deserving cases be?


  • Options
    #5
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,438 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    political analyst wrote: »
    That doesn't sound democratic.
    So, ministers interfering in bank loans was cool?
    What could these less deserving cases be?
    Scammers.


  • Options
    #6
    political analyst
    Registered Users Posts: 4,560 ✭✭✭political analyst


    Victor wrote: »
    So, ministers interfering in bank loans was cool?
    Of course not!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    political analyst
    Registered Users Posts: 4,560 ✭✭✭political analyst


    Miike wrote: »
    They are legally entitled to and tasked with claims and cost management. They don't bow to anyone outside of that. The NTMA have a pretty good website too, if you're interested in the intricate details of how they operate.

    Try telling that to Vicky Phelan!


  • Options
    #8
    Miike
    Registered Users Posts: 2,021 ✭✭✭Miike


    political analyst wrote: »
    Try telling that to Vicky Phelan!

    Have you been drinking? You asked a question and I answered it and now you're banging a Vicky Phelan drum at me.


  • Options
    #9
    political analyst
    Registered Users Posts: 4,560 ✭✭✭political analyst


    Miike wrote: »
    Have you been drinking? You asked a question and I answered it and now you're banging a Vicky Phelan drum at me.

    Of course not! You misunderstood me. I was agreeing with you. My point, which I didn't make clearly, is that you would be wasting your breath if you explained the State's appeal against the High Court judgement in the Ruth Morrissey case.


Advertisement