LimerickNews“Very angry”: Cancer campaigner Vicky Phelan implores health minister to reconsider launch date of CervicalCheck TribunalBy David Raleigh – October 22, 2020 214 Linkedin WATCH: “Everyone is fighting so hard to get on” – Pat Ryan on competitive camogie squads Posting a series of messages on Twitter, Ms Phelan said she was “very angry” at how the proposed tribunal of inquiry was being handled before it had even started.Yesterday Minister Stephen Donnelly brought a memo to Cabinet proposing to open the tribunal next Tuesday, which is to investigate negligence in the State’s cancer screening programme.However, Ms Phelan, a member of the 221plus campaign group, which formed following the cancer smear test scandal, claimed the women affected by the scandal and their families “who this Tribunal is aimed at, were not afforded an opportunity to respond to the Minister’s decision to formally establish the Tribunal BEFORE it was announced”.“As we have become used to, those most affected are often the last to know,” Ms Phelan tweeted.“We met the Minister and officials from (Department of Health) on a Zoom meeting just 6 weeks ago. We set out several aspects of the proposed Tribunal that were causing us, and our members, serious concern, the Minister’s response yesterday is a flat rejection of ALL of our concerns,” she said.“We asked for a non-adversarial route to be found for the Tribunal, one NOT obliging women to fight the labs given recent rulings. The (High Court) in the (Patricia) Carrick case reaffirmed the view taken by the (Supreme Court) in (Ruth) Morrissey, that it was NOT necessary for women to sue the labs…”“Women could instead rely on the non-delegable duty owed to them by the HSE, who were found primarily responsible for the cervical screening programme in the Morrissey case. The HSE could then rely on their contractual and legal indemnities against the lab.”“BUT The Minister rejected these arguments and set out in his letter how the laboratories MUST be involved in proceedings if taken before the Tribunal. This will NOT be acceptable to many of our members,” Ms Phelan said.The Limerick mother who was given a terminal diagnosis after she was given a false negative smear test result, added: “We asked that applicants to the Tribunal who receive an award be allowed to return to the Tribunal should they suffer a recurrence of their cancer, in the same way that the State allowed applicants before the Hep-C Tribunal to return where their health deteriorates.”“Such a right to return to the Tribunal would be an advantage over the High Court procedures where, of course, no such right exists. The Minister’s letter did not even address this hugely important issue,” she said.“Another issue that the Minister did not address is that of the Statute of Limitations. We explained to the Minister that some of our members have received legal advice that they may now be statute-barred because they relied on the Government’s promise of a ‘non-adversarial’ Tribunal and did not issue (High Court) proceedings.““These members may now, through no fault of their own, be statute-barred because of delays by Government of more than two years in establishing this Tribunal. The Minister did not address this issue,” she added.“We had been given to believe that it was the needs of the women and families affected by the CervicalCheck debacle and NOT those of the @HSELive and the labs that were to come first in the Government’s response to the terrible wrongs visited upon our members.”Ms Phelan further argued that “on the basis of all of the above, we would ask the Minister to reconsider any move to launch the CervicalCheck Tribunal next week”.“Instead, we would plead with him to redouble efforts to sit down again with members of the @221plus, to identify an alternative solution of redress which is what our members have asked for, and what they deserve.” Facebook Previous articleShop LOCAL | Shop LIMERICKNext articleWhat Do Level 5 Restrictions Mean For Football? David Raleigh Limerick’s National Camogie League double header to be streamed live LIMERICK CervicalCheck campaigner Vicky Phelan has accused the Minister for Health of ignoring her and her fellow cancer campaigners concerns over the proposed CervicalCheck Tribunal, which is due to start October 27th. “Otherwise, we will be recommending that @221plus members NOT participate in this Tribunal should it go ahead in its current format next week.“ Roisin Upton excited by “hockey talent coming through” in Limerick Donal Ryan names Limerick Ladies Football team for League opener TAGSKeeping Limerick PostedlimerickLimerick Post Twitter WhatsApp RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR Print Vicky PhelanPhoto: Oisin McHugh True Media Limerick Ladies National Football League opener to be streamed live Billy Lee names strong Limerick side to take on Wicklow in crucial Division 3 clash Email Advertisement
LettersOn 23 Apr 2002 in Personnel Today Previous Article Next Article This week’s lettersHealey’s support welcomed by IIP We welcome the skills minister John Healey’s unequivocal support forInvestors in People (IIP), as well as the additional funding announced on thefront page of Personnel Today (News, 9 April). This extra financial resource, coupled with the Government’s clear advocacy,gives IIP a solid platform for building on past successes. It will help takethe IIP Standard to the forefront of the drive to improve skills andproductivity in the UK. IIP has strong support across the whole of the UK, with 25,600 organisationshaving met the requirements of the IIP Standard. This represents 25 per cent ofthe UK workforce. A further 16 per cent of people work for organisations which have made aformal commitment to working with the standard and moving towards recognition. Although the changeover from Training and Enterprise Councils to Learningand Skills Councils – now the main delivery network for the IIP Standard acrossEngland – temporarily affected the throughput of IIP recognitions earlier inthe year, the pace has now picked up considerably. The total number of recognitions has more than doubled in the past threeyears – with many more expected over the coming months and into the future. Given these figures, IIP is quite obviously a robust ongoing proposition atthe heart of the Government’s workplace development initiative. Far fromneeding to be “propped up”, IIP is set to drive the agenda to promoteproductivity and skills. Ruth Spellman Chief executive, Investors in People UK Little forethought given to the LSCs In response to the article ‘Government acts to prop up faltering IIP’ (News,9 April), I would like to comment as an IIP practitioner and a witness to thetransition from TECs to LSCs. IIP is simply a tool used to implement an ethos of good people managementand development. In my opinion, the primary reason why IIP does not have theimpact it should in organisations is the commitment to its ethos shown by theparticipating organisations themselves. In principle, a more skilled, more knowledgeable and more motivatedworkforce will directly impact on the bottom line, but where organisations’leaders do not truly share this ethos, the tool is not used to its maximumeffect. The reason why IIP accreditations are down is due to the transition fromTECs to LSCs. Very little forethought was given to IIP when setting up the LSCsand throughout this painful transition, I watched the rate and quality ofcustomer relationship management and client contact steadily fall, as peoplebecame concerned about their own futures. Is it any wonder IIP performance has dropped? And, one year since the LSCswere born, many of them are still ‘formulating strategy’, while the remainingIIP practitioners are doing their best with the little they have. In short, it would be easy to use IIP as a scapegoat, but the real reasonwhy the Government has to ‘prop up’ IIP now is that it failed to act withforesight in 1999. The reason research tells us that IIP is not affectingproductivity is not the fault of the tool, but of a lack of employers’ faithand commitment of the underpinning principles. If we blame the tool, we pave the way for another ‘management fad’. Thismight keep civil servants in work but will have little impact on the nation’sprosperity. Colin Davies Operations manager, The Mega Centre, Sheffield Is HR changing for the worst? I have always believed that there is a professional bond linking members ofthe HR profession. Cold calls to other commercial or industry personnelpractitioners to seek advice or information were always accepted, resulting inhelpful conversations of mutual interest. Recently I have completely failed to get through to two personnel directors– one of a large local business and one national – despite multiple phone callsand messages over a period of weeks. I always stress that I am not a consultantor salesman, but neither chose to talk to me. Has something changed in the profession? Or is there simply no sense ofcommunity among modern HR professionals. I would be interested to hear of otherreaders’ experiences. Richard Bonnie Group personnel director, A&P Group Limited Comments are closed. Related posts:No related photos.