I could easily insult Patricia Hewitt until the cows come home, however not wanting to sink to her depth I shall instead take apart her responses to parliamentary questions point by point.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070319/debtext/70319-0003.htm#0703198000001
1.“Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD): We are still waiting for two things: first, an apology from the Secretary of State and, secondly, an unambiguous answer to the question that the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) asked about quality assurance, which is one of the safeguards available to anyone who introduces new systems, however much they are needed. Will she give an unambiguous answer? Have the final MMC and MTAS systems been subject to formal quality assurance—yes or no?
Ms Hewitt: My understanding is yes.”
Garth: MTAS has not been validated or piloted or quality assured. A small flawed study in 2005 showed that long assessment centres were a good selection tool for GP trainees, however there is no evidence anywhere to back up the MTAS short listing process.
2. Hewitt“On the issue of MTAS, let me quote the independent PMETB:”
3.Hewitt:“A similar system has been operating successfully in the
4.Hewitt: “My hon. Friend is right. A great deal of development work, quality assurance and so on went into the MTAS process and, more broadly, into modernising medical careers. There have been real problems this year, as I said in my statement, which is why we are working with the review group to sort them out and learn further lessons for round 2, and for next year.”
5.Hewitt: “Gentleman speaks of introduction being rushed, but work on modernising medical careers and on its implementation has gone on since about 2003. That could not possibly be described as rushed.”
6. Hewitt: “In a sense, the hon. Gentleman’s suggestions have already been considered by the review group, which has received evidence and listened to representations from a very wide range of people.”
7. Hewitt:“It has always been the case under the new system that when applications are submitted, the full CV and portfolio can be, and generally are, attached.”
8. Hewitt:“The hon. Member for
9. Hewitt:“I have heard others suggest that some candidates’ applications were lost in the process—and I understand that that too is untrue.”
10.Hewitt: “The hon. Gentleman asked whether there would be 8,000 jobless doctors. There will be nothing of the kind.”
11.This question posed: ‘will a majority of the review panel be composed of people who did not set up the original scheme?’
Overall a rather nasty new labour specimen gave several wrong answers and a very compelling case could be made that she did in fact lie to parliament on more than one occasion.
The one thing that stood out was her complete refusal to even apologise to those who have been affected by these weeks of turmoil. She even tried to take credit for the 'success of MTAS' in her final statement.
What merits resignation from the new labour front bench these days? Surely downright incompetence should be enough? But then again, just look at the man in command of this lot and it then becomes abundantly clear that these people have no morals, no shame and no respect for the people they claim to serve.
1 comment:
damn brilliant.. my thoughts on hewitt spelt out. Silly woman. I was yelling at my computer screen watching her evade the questions.
Post a Comment