Tag Archives: TTIP

The Deregulation Bill – Episode III : Regulate, what with?

January 14, 2015 jenpersson

Regulation, the use of regulatory powers and the authority to oversee them, are in flux in England.

Some will have lesser discussed, but long term, wide ranging effects such as the regulatory framework and requirement for profit in almost all public bodies.

A significant amendment [1] appears to have been proposed by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 9th Jan, 2015 in the Deregulation Bill [2]. The next discussion date of which seems to be provisionally scheduled for February 3rd and 5th.

The amendment proposes the removal of ten regulatory functions in health and care, from the requirement to exercise the clause of considerable concern, renamed from clause 83 to clause 88: the statutory duty towards a desirability to promote economic growth.

My last post in November on this clause was after the debate in which Lord Tunnicliffe concluded:

”if our fears comes to pass, these three clauses could wreak havoc in a regulatory regime within this country.”

Later he asked:

“are these new clauses a licence for regulators to approve regulations that kill people to save money?”

Clause 88: background on the clause to ‘promote economic growth.’

Almost a year ago, in February 2014, [3] MPs had discussed this same clause in its passage in the House of Commons.

MPs were asked to support a reasoned amendment tabled by Caroline Lucas, Jonathan Edwards, John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn MPs.

They proposed the removal of the clause, requiring the desirability for economic growth, and they had concerns:

…”that this Bill represents a race to the bottom and an obsession with GDP growth at any cost which is not in the public interest.”

(my underlining):

[…]”the Health and Safety Executive, which is irresponsible and risks undermining their core roles; further considers that this Bill is another illustration of a Government which is embarking on a deregulatory path without due consideration of warnings, including from businesses, that effective regulation is essential to create jobs and innovation and that ripping up vital green legislation risks locking the UK into polluting industrial processes for decades to come, jeopardising future competitiveness, damaging the UK’s attractiveness for green investment, and undermining new industries.”

This clause must be reviewed thoroughly and transparently from scratch. If indeed these ten bodies are to be considered for exclusion from the clause there must be a detailed case of why. This leads automatically to ask for the benefits to justify the inclusion of others. If this has not been made transparent to the Lords debating the clause by now, then the bill should not pass as is without reasonable justification.

Is there an MP or Lord who will gladly take the responsibility to say:

“I agreed to a new law, the consequences of which I was not clear, but I did not ask the questions I should have done. I ignored that Lord Tunnicliffe asked: “are these new clauses a licence for regulators to approve regulations that kill people to save money?” And I did not examine why this might be for each and every function of regulation it affects.”

Based on what decision criteria and based on what measures or public interest test has this department area been selected for exclusion and others, such as the environment, been omitted?

Considering the reported opinion of the Bill’s proponent Oliver Letwin MP to the NHS it sould seem wise to ask, what kind of National Health Service do our MPs expect to see in future under this new model of statutory requirement to seek profit.

In conclusion:

Is the bill designed to future-proof regulatory common sense or set it up for widespread failure from the start?

In the words of Lord Tunnicliffe:

“The problem is the clauses themselves. Clause 83(2) states that:

‘the person must … consider the importance for the promotion of economic growth of exercising the regulatory function in a way which ensures that … regulatory action is taken only when it is needed, and … any action is proportionate”.

“Those words by themselves seem a pretty high test for a regulator. As I tried to illustrate, our lives are made acceptable and benign by regulators acting pretty well as they do at the moment to protect us. So are these new clauses a licence for regulators to approve regulations that kill people to save money?”

It should be made very transparent what bodies will be affected, why, how the decision making in each function will be carried out and what with? At national or local level ruling authority?

Clearly there is still work to be done to ensure that the implications in the public interest. That ethic seems to have been lost at the back of the vast cupboard of all that the deregulation bill has in store.

Alongside the changes to the sale of liqueur chocolates and weights and measures for knitting yarn we have lost something much greater in the Deregulation Bill.

However this amendment suggests there is new hope coming for the proposed change to regulatory powers and their profit making; that in fact, some significant bodies may be made exempt of this duty on a statutory footing.

Now the case should be made why any public bodies should not be.

Simply, the wider Public Interest must come first, above profit.

Perhaps when one hears calls to ignore criticism of these proposals of deregulation in this bill and in TTIP one would do well to ask why.

Anything else could be as disastrous for society, as the Poll Tax is now accepted to have been for Margaret Thatcher.

But perhaps, some would maintain, there is still no such thing?

*********

For those with more in depth interest:

Further detail; below I continue and review the amendment, wider implications at local authority level, changes in the future landscape of health and social care and why it could be of significant negative impact on political and social trust.

This is my update on two previous posts; Part one: October 4th, Deregulation Bill Clause 47 and the back door access to journalist sources and Part two: the Deregulation Bill Clause 83 from 6th Nov with additional notes on Nov 21st.

It continues with Part four to follow: The Deregulation Bill: Part IV New Hope for Regulatory powers?

*****

The amendment

Here is what it looks like:

Page 70, line 29, at end insert—“( ) This section does not apply to the following—

(a) Care Quality Commission,

(b) Human Tissue Authority,

(c) Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency,

(d) Professional Standards Authority,

(e) General Medical Council,

(f) Nursing and Midwifery Council,

(g) Health and Care Professions Council,

(h) General Chiropractic Council,

(i) General Dental Council,

(j) General Pharmaceutical Council,

(k) Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, and

(l) any persons exercising a regulatory function with respect to health and care service that the Secretary of State specifies by order.

( ) An order under this section must be made by statutory instrument.

( ) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section may not be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”

What would the amendment change, if they become law?

These exceptions are specific to healthcare and, it remains to be seen if they will be adopted.

There is also some provision, to make further special cases for the health and care service more broadly, that the Secretary of State specifies by order.

This addresses some organisations in the regulation of health and care.

But it opens up the question more clearly why should other bodies be included? Where is the benefit – and where is the cost and risk analysis?

That would be a most welcome discussion in the public interest. Some professionals and professional bodies have already flagged their concern.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission is one example, that was discussed in the last debate andthe ECHR response to it. [4]

Nov 21st update: see Column GC229 < and whilst verbal assurances were made, it appears nothing changed in the Bill, and that the EHRC said in response:

“While we welcome this undertaking we understand that this doesn’t mean that we’ll be removed on the face of the Bill”.

The ECHR clearly sees it as detrimental and asks for change. Will the government ride roughshod over professional opinion without transparent and thorough justifications of the need for this?

If so, it seems an extraordinary dismissal of democracy.

Other bodies should take the lead from the EHRC and make their positions clear in the public domain now, or risk future backlash once the impacts become clear.

What wider impact will this amendment have?

At first the effect appears to be that a significant number of health related bodies could be freed from the duty to make a profit.

At national level this seems a welcome and sensible step.

To decide which bodies should and which bodies should not be exempt it must be very clear exactly what impact these changes will have.

For each body involved, an impact assessment table should be drawn up – what do they regulate, how, why and what would change under the deregulation bill and the effects of its clauses, especially 88. Risks and benefits.

That would help understand today’s position.

The next step is to understand the future implications. Identify which bodies will be deregulated by it in future, why and how they will be affected by other aspects of the bill.

However it’s not the whole story.

How these bodies perform their tasks at national level and how far down their powers reach will affect the organisations below them.

These lower branches of organisational structure also need to be understood for any regulatory implications. How that function is carried out under what powers needs to be clear at what point the removal of the requirement would have an effect.

These ten bodies are in health and social care. The future of health seems to be bound to social care and in Simon Stevens’ vision, with ever more physical, as well as financial mergers.

In an interview with the Financial Times: he predicted ‘a blurring of the [lines] that exist between different public services’.He said:

“You’re not going to have, in the future, a separate police station, ambulance station, schools, health service buildings and so on”, he said. [Jan 4th 2015, FT]

Basing my understanding on CCG meeting attendance, reading ADASS minutes and general media news. it appears pooled budgetary responsibility will call for a shift in more responsibility to local authorities.

Is it therefore logical to assume that will include the responsibility for regulatory functions?

Any changes therefore at national level in terms of organisational structure or regulatory responsibility will have an affect at lower levels.

So for an organisation of the amendment ten, taking the Care Quality Commission for example, it is not unthinkable that change is inevitable regardless whether they are in or out of this clause.

The CQC has come in for some criticism in recent months with media stories repeating failings. Mistakes were made, with significant media coverage, on the calculations of quality ratings of GP practices.

Questions were raised in November as to the extent of the reach of the CQC surveillance powers at practice level, reviewing individual patient medical records ‘to assess the quality of care provided by the practice’ without individual consent. Professionals on social media raised their electronic eyebrows and lamented the breach of confidentiality.

What deeper impact will this have?

What happens should the CQC powers be broken up at national level and carried out at local level instead needs to be examined.

The body having been made exempt at national level from this commercially driven clause, may find that the regulatory functions would be required to comply with it again at Local Authority level.

The reasons why the CQC should be made exempt, would therefore be lost in the transition, unless the special orders and special provision were made before any organisational restructure.

The timing therefore of new regulations would need to become integral to any departmental organisational change at any and every level of regulatory governance.

Instead of removing ‘red tape’ and bureaucracy in this bill, I foresee it adding a burden of analysis and requirement to assess and document responsibilities; determining whether or not the clause to promote economic growth should apply or not.

Its definition is so vague and its responsibility to be ‘proportionate’ so open, that in fact it is not assigned to anybody; which everybody knows, means it ends up being done, by nobody.

Every time some any reorganisation is planned, the impact of this regulatory clause may need considered and not only in health and social care but in every aspect of regulatory function across government.

Every action a regulatory body takes, is by default ‘regulatory action.’ So any time the function should do its job, each and every time, every decision, every ruling, would need to consider the need for economic growth and if they need to act at all.

(a) regulatory action is taken only when it is needed,

and

(b) any action taken is proportionate.

Surely this is what they do already in every decision, and therefore why make it a statutory requirement at all – for any regulatory body?

If we don’t need it, why write it in. And if we do need it, what precisely is it intended to do, how and why?

I would encourage anyone who has not yet done so, to have a good look over the contents of the bill. It’s like an end of year sale and there is definitely something in there for everyone. The likelihood is high that some unforeseen damage will be done to the public interest in the rush to get it through in this term by government, akin to a Black Friday panic. The bills lined up to rush through the last minute doors of parliament, seem to be queueing in droves.

For bodies which have regulatory functions today in health and social care at Local Authority level already, the hoped for reduction in harm through this amendment affecting their national level body, could fail to materialise.

The high-level health and social care bodies may get “let off” the duty in explicit terms in the bill, but if the function is performed at another level, “on the ground”, the requirement of the function will in effect still happen under-the-radar.

An example may be public health functions now held at the LA.[5]

Here is at least a starting point to go deeper into who regulates what at local authority level. [6] Imagine each and every regulatory function trying to consider the importance for the promotion of economic growth of exercising the regulatory function in a way which ensures that —

(a) regulatory action is taken only when it is needed,

and

(b) any action taken is proportionate.

How will as another example, the local government ombudsman make a profit but not put that before the people it serves?

In this case their role is managing complaints about councils and some other authorities and organisations, including education admissions appeal panels and adult social care providers. How does one justify exploiting that, for profit?

With purdah and the general election drawing near, this may be a question with an unpredictable answer for many organisations if their future structural model is uncertain.

The backdrop

There are various other bills in progress to do with regulation, which involve communications and data, and by implication, potentially journalists’ sources. They are also affected by clause 47 in the deregulation bill which the NUJ protested in 2014. [more in my next post].

A press free from political control and undue regulation is something to be held dear, and indeed Guido Fawkes has experienced this week. attempts to control it, by the Electoral Commission:

“Guido has no intention of registering with the Electoral Commission or reporting a penny of spending or anything else to them. This authoritarian law is a nonsense. If you read the guidance it should apply to newspapers. We haven’t just rejected statutory control of the printed press by one regulator for political control of digital media by another.”

Here we arrive at the nub of the issue: what is to be deregulated and why and by whom are fundamental to understand what effects these changes will require, and the demands the duty for economic growth will create.

I question: “Can this dramatic change, really be a wise and throroughly thought out course of action, when the only certainty in the affected organisations’ governance duties is that in fewer than five months, it may all change?”

Had all the background and assessments been done already, one would think it could be understandable to press on and complete. But the fact that this significant amendment has been proposed now, surely shows that an adequate cost benefit and risk assessment does not exist. Does it not exist only for these ten, or for all?

All sorts of areas of public interest are affected, with questions being asked on private tenancy changes to the very Electoral Commission itself.

In the run up to the election, will it be asked to become a profit driven entity? – instead of prioritising its key focus, the regulation of our democratic processes:

“These roles and responsibilities outline much of the work we do in order to meet our objectives of:

well-run elections, referendums and electoral registration

transparency in party and election finance, with high levels of compliance”

How will the Electoral Commission maintain neutrality if profit must drive the function as the regulator of political funding and spending?

That decision could have almighty and lasting effect on public confidence and our trust in the wake of the MP expenses scandals.

Without a publicly available clear cost benefit analysis, the overwhelming drive for profit in every sector of UK regulatory reach remains at best unclear. The intended benefits or whether they will even create any efficiencies, never mind public gain, lacking.

At worst, “are these new clauses a licence for regulators to approve regulations that kill people to save money?”

****

Key references:

[1] Proposed amendment by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath in the Deregulation bill.

[2] The Deregulation Bill

[3] Hansard, February 3 2014, MPs propose removal of clause

[4] Hansard, November 20th 2014, ECHR comments included in Lords’ debate

[5] Public Health functions under Local Authority

[6] Local Authority regulatory functions

********

List of The National Regulators – the ten bodies above are those explicitly mentioned in Lord Hunt of King’s Heath’s amendment:

Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency (AHVLA)

Animals in Science Regulation Unit

Architects Registration Board (ARB)

British Hallmarking Council (BHC)

Care Quality Commission (CQC)

Charity Commission for England and Wales

Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)

Claims Management Regulation Unit

Coal Authority

Companies House

Competition Commission

Professional Standards for Health and Social Care (PSA)

Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS)

Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI)

Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA)

Driving Standards Agency (DSA)

Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate (EAS)

English Heritage (EH)

Environment Agency

Equality and Human Rights Commission

Financial Reporting Council (FRC)

Fish Health Inspectorate (FHI), Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas)

Food and environment research agency (plant and bee health) and (Plant Variety and Seeds)

F ood Standards Agency (FSA)

Forestry Commission

Gambling Commission

Gangmasters Licensing Authority (GLA)

General Medical Council

General Chiropractic Council

General Dental Council

General Pharmaceutical Council

Health and Safety Executive (HSE)

Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE)

Highways Agency (HA)

HM Revenue and Customs (Money Laundering Regulations and National Minimum Wage)

Homes & Communities Agency (HCA)

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Association (HFEA)

Human Tissue Authority (HTA)

Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO)

Insolvency Service including Insolvency Practitioner Unit

Intellectual Property Office (IPO)

Legal Services Board (LSB)

Marine Management Organisaton (MMO)

Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA)

Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)

Monitor

National Measurement Office (NMO)

Natural England

Nursing and Midwifery Council

Office of Communications

Office for Fair Access (OFFA)

Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR)

Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (OFSTED)

Office of Fair Trading

OFQUAL

Office of Rail Regulation (ORR)

Office of the Regulator of Community Interest Companies

OFGEM

Pensions Regulator

Rural Payments Agency (RPA)

Security Industry Authority (SIA)

Senior Traffic Commissioner

Sports Grounds Safety Authority (SGSA)

Trinity House Lighthouse Service (THLS)

UK Anti-Doping (UKAD)

Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA)

Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA)

Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD)

***

Please feel free to comment below or find me on twitter @TheABB

care.data, human rights, leadership, NHS, NHS England, politics

Deregulation – the UK Bill and the Titanic TTIP

November 6, 2014 jenpersson

The Deregulation Bill will go to the Lords Committee stage on 6th November. [For ongoing progress, see here.]

[graphic added Nov 21st: This was the concluding statement by Lord Tunnicliffe on November 20th.]

I write this in follow up to a previous post of because it’s a big bill with one very important little clause, amongst much detail which needs careful review in the public interest:

What is it? Clause 83: Exercise of regulatory functions, economic growth:

(1) A person exercising a regulatory function to which this section applies must, in the exercise of the function, have regard to the desirability of promoting economic growth.

(2) In performing the duty under subsection (1), the person must, in particular, consider the importance for the promotion of economic growth of exercising the regulatory function in a way which ensures that—

(a) regulatory action is taken only when it is needed,

and

(b) any action taken is proportionate.

This section of the Deregulation Act which is currently passing through Parliament, suggests the removal of any regulation that conflicts with the interests of a profit-maker.

There are domestic and regulatory bodies for which we should carefully consider this implication.

The Deregulation Bill surely creates an ethical conflict or at least challenge, when in law it must consider commercial gain on a statutory footing above other factors?

The clause is openly worded, that regulatory action should be taken only when it is needed and that any action taken should be ‘proportionate’.

That suggests that regulatory interventions should be reduced. Who and how will it be decided when and what is proportionate?

The Bill provides that a person exercising a regulatory function specified by the Minister:

“must, in the exercise of the function, have regard to the desirability of promoting economic growth.”

In detail, what does that mean? If it’s not important why include it at all? If it is important, why have we heard so little about it?

That Lord Tunnicliffe would make such a forceful statement should not be taken lightly: …”if our fears comes to pass, these three clauses could wreak havoc in a regulatory regime within this country.”

Which bodies will this affect?

Functions to which section 83 applies:

There is a long list of regulatory organisations at the end of this post.

Click on the organisation’s name below to read about each one.

The implications for them are unclear but should be examined for public bodies whose function today is not for profit.

For one area in particular, and close to my heart, we should understand its impact on regulation of the NHS; Monitor and CQC, the MHRA and HFEA (Fertility and Embryology) and how about the Human Tissue Authority? A body whose purpose is to:

“manage the interests of the public and those we regulate at the centre of our work. It aims to maintain confidence by ensuring that human tissue is used safely and ethically, and with proper consent.” [Ref: HTA]

It is unclear how this profit aim will be helpful for these bodies in healthcare, especially considering some of the issues in state social care .

A different body where others share a concern about the impact of clause 83 is for the EHRC.

The Joint Committee Reported on Human Rights, June 14th 2014 has concerns about the impact of this, listed in this report:

The Government intends this economic growth duty to apply to the EHRC. We believe that applying this growth duty to the EHRC poses a significant risk to the EHRC’s independence, and therefore to its compliance with the Paris Principles and the Equal Treatment Directives as implemented by the Equality Act 2010. The Government is therefore risking the possibility of the EHRC’s accredited “A” status being downgraded and of putting the UK in breach of its obligations under EU equality law. Unless the continuing discussions between the Government and the Commission satisfy the Commission that the growth duty will not in any way impact upon its independence, we recommend that this duty not be applied to the EHRC.

[Nov 21st update: this clause was specifically debated > see Column GC229 < and whilst verbal assurances were made, it appears nothing has changed in the Bill, and that the EHRC said in response:

“While we welcome this undertaking we understand that this doesn’t mean that we’ll be removed on the face of the Bill”.

So what value the assurances from the Minister who will have left his post long before the Bill may be in effect?]

A large number of organisations play a part in securing compliance with the law. They include national regulators, local authorities, and bodies independent of Government, some of which have statutory regulatory functions. The list below of the main national regulators is not exhaustive, but long. Clause 83 will have a very wide reach.

We should understand just how wide ranging this apparently small function in the Bill may turn out to be.

I believe this clause will serve to mop up the real or imagined economic leakage that the government seeks to collect from all these bodies. Resources that are as yet, untapped.

How will these regulatory bodies promote economic growth?

I wonder how, in the best public interest at all times, economic interest should come first in bodies responsible for oversight?

Will they be compelled to consider [further] cost cutting, selling assets, or charging for services? Or how about entering into commercial partnerships?

Will the Drinking Water Inspectorate under DEFRA stay entirely independent?

What about the Gambling Commission – in its remit is ‘to protect children and vulnerable people from being harmed or exploited by gambling’?

How will the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) hope to promote economic growth? Or the Forestry commission?

The consequences of such widespread promotion of deregulation and the requirement to actively promote profit seems ill-thought through and given little public attention.

Could it be that under austerity, and desperate to squeeze every drop of monetary gain from our state bodies, that this clause will open the gateway to increased fees, or the start of fees for some current non-charging access by the public to services?

Or will they be encouraged as schools were once, to sell off land and assets? Many of these bodies hold little land. The assets they both produce and hold, is data. It is clear from current practice and the direction of travel across government departments, that information is seen as a commodity and an untapped resource for sale. Perhaps this is an area each body will look at selling?

What about authorities which charge the public fees for services or could do so – the CAA for airspace regulation, the DVLA or the ICO? Will we see an increase in service charges – it is perhaps almost inevitable if the desirability to promote economic growth is to be given statutory footing.

In addition to looking at what may actively promote commercial growth by direct sale or raising fees, rather than imaginary direct marketing concepts, in order to promote economic growth, will we simply find it more likely that indirect growth is encouraged through change in regulatory practices?

Most importantly perhaps, will we see regulations slackened which cost money to oversee?

Will the organisations which are to be regulated, permitted to do more which promotes commercial interest over other policies, or ethics?

I wonder if a future state aims to deregulate the market in almost every field of activity to enable profits for private commercial businesses, and if the intent is not desirable economic growth for the state directly, but indirectly?

If so, will the ideology that once deregulated, somehow private business interests will contribute more to the economy than they do today, be realised in practice? How has the deregulation of trains, postal services, water and utilities benefited the public interest over economic growth?

If the benefit is to be state economic growth, whether through revenue direct or indirect, and whether or not it is achieved in the way it may be hoped, there will be other consequences.

Have we learned lessons from other areas in which oversight of regulation has been slackened in recent times, such as banking?

What happened since Banking was deregulated?

Anyone who can look back at the deregulation of the financial markets and say it was all, without any doubt a good thing, should say subprime mortgage deregulation and wash their mouth out.

“Regulation did not keep pace and became mismatched with the risks building in the economy. The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) tasked with investigating the causes of the crisis reported in January 2011 that: “We had a 21st-century financial system with 19th-century safeguards.” [FCIC report]

“It found widespread failures in financial regulation; dramatic breakdowns in corporate governance; excessive borrowing and risk-taking by households and Wall Street; policy makers who were ill prepared for the crisis; and systemic breaches in accountability and ethics at all levels.” **[FCIC]

In summary, has any cost risk benefit analysis has been done on the impact of what this widespread cross-market promotion of deregulation and the desirability of economic growth in a regulatory function will mean?

Why may this be seen as a desirable course of action?

Deregulation is tacking its way to its destination through the Lords in the UK. Whether it will reach it before the end of this parliamentary term is perhaps unclear. But let’s not forget deregulation is the course on which we are set globally, at full steam ahead.

This UK Bill is simply a sponge on the deck of the Titanic of deregulation, the TTIP.

The purpose of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is to remove the regulatory differences between the US and European nations. Its plan to cross the Atlantic at break neck speed has been somewhat slowed. But its purpose remains steadfast. There are effectively no tariff restrictions in place any more, so the barriers left to lift are those of regulatory intervention:

“The US and the European commission, both of which have been captured by the corporations they are supposed to regulate, are pressing for investor-state dispute resolution to be included in the agreement.” [The Guardian, Nov 4 2014]

This peer-reviewed paper looks at the imagined trade and its consequences, “leaving the investment component of TTIP on the sidelines. Going forward, valuable insights could be drawn by further extending the analysis of TTIP’s financial effects.”

[Update Nov 13, letter today in the FT: quotes the same research paper and notes, “Even the most vocal proponents of free trade admit that there’s nothing irrational about opposing such big issues of public policy being traded off behind closed doors.” Nick Dearden, Director, World Development Movement]

Whilst much is made, with some confusion, around the potential for impact on the NHS, TTIP is indisputably very real for the rest of industry and wider market. And any deregulation as a whole touches many NHS bodies.

Despite wide professional and public criticism the TTIP discussions continue with little transparency. Deregulation appears to have become the UK government’s mantra for achieving economic growth, though in coalition not everyone may agree it is right.

In conclusion:

There should be detailed analysis and an impact assessment made for this Deregulation Bill clause 83 as it stands alone.

It must also be seen in conjunction with proposals for deregulation under TTIP, and the impact analysed for the vast number of regulatory bodies and functions we have under the State wing, for the public good.

I sincerely hope our legislators in the Lords are taking this into account and not as a stand-alone Bill, but in the wider picture of current TTIP trade negotiations, and that the failures created in part through deregulation twenty years ago in banking, are not recycled now across the board.

Can society afford “dramatic breakdowns in governance, risk taking, learning by mistakes, or systemic breaches in accountability and ethics?” ** as we saw as a consequence in banking?

Oversight serves an important purpose.

It is often to ensure a balance between the needs of people, and search for profit. Whilst it is an accepted practice in our market economy, to seek to make a profit, oversight and regulation can ensure it’s not at the expense of the greater good.

Some of these public services that the regulatory bodies oversee in England will be harmed if they are not free to all at the point of their delivery. The independence of their ethical decision making will be challenged if it competes with promoting economic growth.

Who will help the public understand what this Deregulation Bill clause really will mean and complete proper and transparent public analysis of its impact for each regulatory authority?

I hope that those responsible for scrutiny of the Bill see value in maintaining first and foremost, independent oversight and ethics, in the Public Interest.

Or will the band continue to play as TTIP sails on? And will the Deregulation Bill pass as is, to promote the desirability of economic growth at all costs?

———

[Update November 21st:

Significant concerns raised in yesterday’s discussion by Lord Tunnicliffe and others on this Clause 83: The promotion of Economic Growth for Regulatory Bodies.

Social Care:
On a previous day of debate (Nov 18th) it appears regulation of Social Care staff is to be scrapped without proper consultation or scrutiny, in Clause 71.

Column GC116: “This is despite the fact that there was no clear support for removing regulation in the original consultation responses.

“The Government did not consult on this issue as part of the consultation in April 2014 on extending outsourcing in children’s social work. During the debate in Committee in the House of Commons on whether the clause should stand part of the Bill, the Deputy Leader of the Commons, Tom Brake MP, acknowledged that there had been no clear support for removing the registration requirement.”

“The Office of the Children’s Commissioner for England raised concerns and stated: “We consider all delegated social care services should be required to have formal registration with Ofsted in addition to an expectation that they will be held to account by rigorous and expert inspection, just as local authorities currently are”.

Scrutiny and Bill quality and clarity:
In particular concerns are raised in the Lords on lack of proper documentation and new legislation included which has not had scrutiny by the HoC or Scrutiny Committee.

Column GC142 “it is inefficient for Parliament to try to scrutinise line by line material which is obscure and possibly not very well expressed in terms of the material we are given and the notes.”
“One is that without a Keeling schedule relating to the particularities of the Bills being amended, it is almost impossible to work out what they are.”

Column GC144 “… that we are discussing now was not discussed in the Commons. It was not discussed by the Pre-Legislative Scrutiny Committee, as we have heard, and there has been no real opportunity to call those who drafted it to account. A blow for better government.”

Lord Tunnicliffe concluded on November 20th:

“We are all on the same side, but if our fears comes to pass, these three clauses could wreak havoc in a regulatory regime within this country that, generally speaking, is doing pretty well.” [Hansard]

My concerns seem founded, supported by many of these comments in recent debate in the Lords. I feel this Bill is a disaster lying in the future path of the Public Interest. “Iceberg, right ahead!”

End Nov 21st update.]

Please feel free to comment below or find me on twitter @TheABB

*********

List of The National Regulators

Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency (AHVLA)

Animals in Science Regulation Unit

Architects Registration Board (ARB)

British Hallmarking Council (BHC)

Care Quality Commission (CQC)

Charity Commission for England and Wales

Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)

Claims Management Regulation Unit