Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
Updated 14.35
NEW TERMS OF Reference for a Commission of Investigation into the case of Grace, a woman with disabilities who lived in a foster home in the south east of the country, and allegedly suffered abuse there for many years, have been passed in the Dáil by unanimous vote this afternoon.
Following scathing attacks in the Dáil chamber yesterday on the initial terms of reference, Disabilities Minister Finian McGrath agreed to return to Cabinet to redraft those terms in a manner acceptable to the Dáil.
The chief source of the scorn poured in the Dáil by TDs John Deasy and John McGuinness was that the terms as initially envisaged didn’t go far enough in their scope.
There was some confusion for a time prior to the vote as to whether or not the inquiry would be delayed after fiery exchanges at this morning’s sitting of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC).
With the HSE’s actions in testifying before the committee regarding the Grace case being condemned at PAC, a written invitation has been sent to the executive asking that it appear before the committee once more.
A one-week deadline has been set for a written response from the HSE to that invitation, with it expected to be represented in person after a further week. Normally such a parallel action would be expected to delay the Commission of Investigation, however that appears to not be the case here.
Despite widespread condemnation of the situation surrounding the Grace case by TDs (independent Mick Wallace said that “it’s time for heads to roll” at the HSE), all were in agreement that the revised terms of reference are appropriate.
Spot the difference
The new terms have now been published (the original terms can be read here). But what are the differences? Well there aren’t many, but those that have been made are very significant:
So to summarise, the Commission of Investigation is now to pour its focus on both the HSE itself and its treatment of whistleblowers in the context of whatever the second phase of the investigation will refer to. And you can take it as read that means the other 46 children who passed through the foster home.
At the same time, the investigation will still be clearly split in two. So it may be some time before the true nature of what went on in the home as a whole, and how the HSE dealt with what it did and didn’t know, comes to light.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Off the smokes since last Saturday. Besides saving a small fortune I feel so much better for it! Went cold turkey – no patches, gum, spray, e-cigs etc. it is tough but I’m determined not to go near the cigs again. The craving do gradually subside. Stop talking about quitting people and give it a go.. “You can do it”..
Congrats, keep it up!
I found the worst part about quitting was anticipating quitting. Once I finally stopped I felt great. I welcomed the cravings as it meant I was off them.
Never looked back and never felt better. 5 years now. I think of all the damage I avoided doing to myself…
Has nobody asked why all the pressure from anti smoking measures including the banning of consumption in places of work has had no effect whatever on the numbers still puffing away?
Simple or basic psychology will tell you that where messages are negative either in the written or image form they simply cannot be seen.
This particular initiative is doomed to failure as well but along the way it’s going to cause unwanted and Ill considered side effects because the people who plan such a public Health Measures are too narrow in their thinking.
Firstly this campaign is doomed to failure for the reasons already advanced but we may see a commercial spin off in the form of attractive over sleeves that could cover the offending pictures for a few cents and they may even be sponsored with a facility for advertising.
Secondly smokers today tend to smoke much more in the home simply because this is one of the few indoor spaces where the law does not yet intrude on. Leaving a pack on a kitchen table is inevitable and the consequential damage done to the psyche of young children must be put squarely on the shoulders of the Government Department that introduced the idea and uses pictures that you and I would be unable to publish because they breach the Obscene Publications Act.
As the song goes…..when will they ever learn………
@Richard
Maybe the reason why the numbers still puffing away hasn’t reduced is that they are addicts.
Aside from that, I think the intention of the workplace ban was not to incentivise people to fight the addiction, it was to protect the health of the non-smokers who were being poisoned against their will by their smoking work colleagues.
You have to want to quit, plain and simple, some people just don’t want to, and that’s fine. All measures aside, if it gets a small number to quit, it can be deemed a success. And if the reality check prevents people from taking it up, then that is a win win. People who ignore the health impact are just in denial about it.
Good for you Aldo :) I’m nearly 14 weeks cold turkey, the first week or two is definitely the worst but it gets easier every week! Congrats to you, keep it up!!
Richard, you’re point is not that simple. If we hadn’t introduced anti-smoking measures more people may have taken up smoking. So instead of 29% smoking we might have had 40%.
Smoking is now largely the preserve of the poor where by far the highest % smoke. I think it’s as little as 5% in the professional/upper income brackets. It’s nearly 60% among SF supporters :)
Good on ya of them 2years next month and have managed to get fit again done 2 triathlons last year.
Hope you still not smoking just reading old posts on journal about smoking . Off them a week today I am one day at a time
Why don’t make the bold decision of banning the sale of cigarettes altogether?
Agree with ya but there excuse will be “a new black market” also they would lose millions on taxes..and the big billion dollars companies that “treat” cancer would also lose custom due to lower cancer rates in the next generation so it’s a lose lose for the big boys!!
That’s a brilliant idea!! Ban them altogether! We can use the U.S Volstead act and the Prohibition era as a template. That worked pefectly if I remember my history correctly and there were almost no vast, unprecedented criminal empires built on the back of it. Have you considered running for office? With innovative and insightful musings like that you’re talents are wasted here on the Journal.
Smoking kills over 5,200 annually, so we should just sit back and let it continue to happen? I smoked over 20 a day and if the smoking ban didn’t come in I still would be.
A picture of Cowen with a fag in his gob, would have been more affective.
Smoking – bad for individuals, but good for society.
Smokers contribute large sums to the public purse & typically die of lung cancer or heart attack, rather than chronic illnesses associated with old age which can go on for decades. We have to die of something, and those of you selfish enough to live healthy lives on the expectation of living into your dotage, will put more strain on the health services in your latter years than us smokers, who will most likely keel over pretty quick. No Alzheimers for me thank you very much.
Also as smokers, we typically die in our 60s, so no draining of the state pensions for us!
I think we should stop wasting time and money discouraging this civic activity, and applaud smokers everywhere as this generation’s true patriots and heroes.
@Jim
But I thought the nice people from the (tobacco industry funded) Forest UK group who hijacked the thread two days ago were telling us that cigarettes don’t cause cancer and that smokers don’t die younger?
Jim,
Smokers don’t die of heart attacks, they die of pneumonia.
Smokers do suffer from chronic conditions, COPD anyone? Emphysema?
Smokers don’t die in their 60′s, a good anaesthetist can keep a smoker alive into their 80′s, meaning pensions are paid out (more is the pity).
Smoking contributes about 1.5bn directly to revenue, the HSE spends 1-2bn treating smoking related diseases each year (that we know).
Any more incredible myths you’d like me to dispel Jim?
0/10 for trolling
Smoking is a cure for Alzheimers? Since when?
You think smoking has a benefit to the government….I’m sorry Jim think again
Smoking related illnesses costs the HSE approx 2 billion euro a year.
Tobacco products bring in 1.5 billion euro in tax, so instantly non-smokers are having to pick up the tab.
So if the government banned Tobacco products in the morning it would likely take at least 10 years for the knock on affects to be felt properly by the HSE (massive drop in smoking related illnesses).
In the mean time the government would be down 1.5 billion euro a year and the HSE would likely continue to spend around 2billion each year for the next 5 years before we start seeing drops.
So, sure they can ban it, but they’ll need to make up the short fall atleast for the next few years before it continuously to properly drop. This shortfall would have to be done with other taxes on likely non-smokers.
Instead the government is trying to phase out smoking, so for example these images are an effort to try stop new smokers. (something the smoking industry really doesn’t want to happen)
Sure its not ideal but as time goes on they’ll get more expensive, employer’s won’t want smokers as much as they are off sick more often and health insurance will go through the roof.
Claiming smoking is good for society is like claiming excess drinking is good for your liver, its not and never will be.
Source: http://www.diabetes.ie/living-with-diabetes/frequently-asked-questions/smoking/
Source: http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/tax-take-goes-up-in-smoke-200835.html
Barry where did you get €2 billion from? Here http://www.dohc.ie/issues/smoking_ban/smokekey.html is what the Dept of Health has to say “It costs us €1 Billion per year to provide health services for smokers”.
James, Some smokers die from heart attacks. Some even die in traffic accidents.
Brian, 1bn is the lowest figure spent on obvious directly related illnesses, so COPD, emphysema, diabetes, kidney failure, lung cancer, respiratory conditions…
There are indirect illnesses associated with smoking, so smokers are far more likely to have to be admitted for various cancers that wouldn’t be seen to be directly related to smoking, so bowel cancer, stomach cancer, smokers are far more likely to have UTI’s, renal infections, chest infections, more prevalence of flu pneumonia, asthma…
Also, the figure given by HSE doesn’t take into account the fact that smokers take more time out of work due to longer recovery periods, generally are out of work more often than their non-smoking counterpart.
Damocles, most won’t die from heart attack, or car crashes, as is evidenced by fact that most money spent on smokers isn’t spent on trauma care.
Really? According to The British Heart Foundation “Smoking is a leading cause of cardiovascular disease, and smokers are almost twice as likely to have a heart attack compared with people who have never smoked.”, http://www.bhf.org.uk/heart-health/prevention/smoking.aspx
Damocles, most smokers won’t die from a heart attack. Heart attacks don’t kill as much as they used to.
@ Damocles
“Most smokers won’t die of a heart attack”
True.
“Smokers are almost twice as likely to die from a heart attack as non-smokers”
Also true.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Brian Ward, did you not even bother to read my comment.
I gave my sources,
“Some smokers die from heart attacks. Some even die in traffic accidents.”
Also true.
Have to admit the images on the boxes over here in Oz are way more off putting than black and white text.
@Conor Mc from WA, have asked at many outlets re sales and have been told sales are not down
Probably because the anti-smoking legiation and campaign is still relatively recent and Australia is like the 1980s in regards the massive levels of smokers (disgusting to see so many pretty 20 year olds smoke) so it will take 10/15 years to get awareness of the dangers etc to European levels.
@Patricia Martin. Not saying it will be successful. But from a personal point of view i find it more off putting.
I’m off them 93 days today. It’s great. I really feel the difference health wise and financially. Anyone thinking about doing it, give it a go. The first three days are hell but after that, it gets a little easier. This last month has been the easiest of all. I’m free now.
Smoking is disgusting. Some people have no respect for them selves
Fool and their money are easily parted!Actually paying for disgusting yellow teeth and wrinkled skin,not to mention the internal health effects is beyond me.One day people will look back and be perplexed as to what people were thinking.
I see a new market opportunity in cigarette cases here
Couldn’t agree more with you Jason but that would mean actually doing something pratical about it rather than talking about it. There also making too much money out of them and if they did bring in a ban think it would have to be a world wide ban.
An outright ban on anything has never worked. Wasnt effective with alcohol and created a massive crime wave, isnt effective with drugs and causes a lot of crime, wouldnt ve effective with cigarettes and would cause a whole new wave of crime. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Bought myself a lovely new cigarette case yesterday in anticipation of the new packaging! Can’t wait to try it out!
Where did ya get it?
Awww thats lovely Amanda,
Trying to hide the affects that smoking has on your body and health, just keep those fingers in your fears and the fag in your mouth and you’ll be justtttt fine :)
Will do thanks mom!!
Barry you were bleating away before about anti-abortionists using graphic pictures of aborted foetuses, what’s the difference?
I gave up 17 days ago – looks like it was good timing!
My tip: If you decide just to have the one, don’t. Instead decide to buy a packet and decide to go back on them. That will stop you.
off em since last saturday
This won’t help to decrease the number of smokers, as we all no smokers are just dumb asses, who love the smell of stale smoke on their clothes, their hair and don’t forget the fag ash breath.
do you drink?
Trying to compare smoking to drinking is laughable.If i drink in front of a baby the baby isnt harmed,drink in a bar the most thats gonna happen is shite talk,alcohol related violence isnt purely because of alcohol there are underlying factors in all arguments (mainly women!!) Internal health aspects such as liver cancer are undeniable BUT they are solely inflicted on the drinker,not their children or partner.You may as well compare smoking to the other taxable consumer product of petrol as they have more in common.
The problem here is that the same tired old solutions are applied when they simple do not have any meaningful effect.
I gave up smoking on the 11th of November and instead took up Vaping which is essentially an alternative way of consuming nicotine minus the crap produced when smoking. I have not had one smoke since and I can safely say I will never, ever, smoke again. Not many non smokers can say that. I enjoy all the health benefits of a non smoker and do not smell like an ashtray anymore.
The fundamental issue here is we are mixing up the addiction (nicotine) with the delivery mechanism (cigs). Nicotine in reasonable quantities is no worse for you than coffee, it is the delivery mechanism that is killing people.
There are plenty of alternative methods of Nicotine delivery from vaporizers to Snus, all of which are much safer and much more acceptable to consume around others (no second hand effects). Unfortunately Pharama and the Tobbaco industry have so far done a great job in lobbying the EU to have these products either banned or in the process of being banned.
If the government had any sense, for the good of the people, it would encourage the use of Snus and Vaping as alternatives or treatments instead of NRT’s which are ineffective and make it’s revenue on taxing nicotine products which would cover all basis.
I have a great idea for a line of ironic packet covers, with the very same graphic images on them.
I would like €100,000 for 8% of the business.
I’ll give you half the money but I want 40%
Wonder will the pipe come back into fashion? They way things are going with fashion I can see a new craze in pipes just like them big black glasses these days..could ya imagine if some famous celeb was seen smoking a pipe, it would be viral!
I know a few people who do/did that. It wasn’t hipsters surprisingly enough.
I was sure The Lord of the Rings movies would have caused a resurgence. Perhaps The Hobbit will have more luck.
It’s terrible, I’ll probably die young, we all smell bad costs to the state etc etc. Fair play to people who have chosen to give up. personally I enjoy smoking though for simple and probably pathetic reasons but sick of having to apologise for it? My bad
Don’t apologise for it then. The worse smokers are the ex smokers , a lot of them are holier than thou about giving up and never shut up at smokers to give up.
Smoke if you want and don’t if you don’t want.
Would one of those graphic images be Enda Kenny? I think smokers would have major issues of buying anything he’s selling?
No doubt some, if not many, of those purchasing these newly designed packets will just do what a friend of mine, in England, has been doing for many years. Once the large printed messages about how smoking kills was added to packets of cigars, he merely removed the newly purchased cigars from their tin, and placed them into an older tin, one that had no such messages on it. In his mind, problem solved.
The pictures have been on Carrolls the last while. Well apart from the pack I got yesterday . Kind of sickened , They look fair plain without the pics .
Wow more pictures to collect,do they come with a free scrapbook?
Haha I’m the same. I’m after getting two wrinkly apples :(
have your say