It is quite incredible that the Government should now publicly take the Chairman of the Hernandez Tribunal to task for making certain comments in his ruling. The Government should show the Tribunal the respect it deserves and either accept the outcome or appeal the ruling.
The reality is that the Government has used every procedural tool and the massive resources at its disposal to overwhelm a complainant who had no resources when the Government knew or must have known for some time that it could not succeed in defending the case.
In those circumstances it is entirely appropriate for the Chairman to make any remarks he wishes on the conduct of the case. It is right that the people should expect that its Government will treat citizens fairly and that it will apply public resources in a way that serves the public interest. It does not serve the public interest to spend tens of thousands of pounds more in legal costs than Ms Hernandez is to receive in compensation or to have prolonged the matter beyond what was absolutely necessary. Why will the Government not make public the amount of taxpayer’s money spent on legal costs?
As for the denial of the link between Government and Social Services the public will not accept a legalistic view of the circumstances. The reality is that the Social Services Agency is a wholly funded public body. The law that set it up was modelled on the Health Authority. The Government Media Office issues the Agency’s press releases on its behalf. It is staffed by public officers. It provides a public service. The Government takes the credit for measures taken in social services when it wishes. The Minister is the Chairman of it and the Government is politically accountable for its actions. It now also needs to accept gracefully what everybody knows – that in terms of policy and funding it pulls the strings of the Social Services Agency. Who, for example has provided funds for the SSA to fight this case? Self-evidently the Government will have.
The Government is now turning this political tragedy into farce. Clearly the Government is frustrated by the terms of the ruling. It cannot be half the frustration that the applicant must feel having experienced these delays, uncertainties and anxieties for two and a half years.
It is correct to say that the judgment of whether the Government customarily acts in the public interest cannot depend on this case. But the public are entitled to the view that the way the Government has run this matter has not been in the public interest. Its continued resistance to a proper public enquiry of matters raised or to respond to questions of cost is further proof of that.
http://www.gibnews.net/cgi-bin/gn_view.pl/?PDPG080424_1.xml
Home 
