Category Archives: NHS England

#caredata, care.data, engagement, HES, NHS England, trust

Rebuilding trust in care.data

In response to a care.data feature in the November Pharma Times Magazine,  I wrote a brief reader letter which was published, slightly abbreviated, on p.13 in the December issue.[1]

The November article had given me the impression that legislation in the Care Act from July was considered to have ironed out most patient concerns.

And it said that GPs opting patients out at practice level ‘would be illegal’.

I suggested three things.

1. The importance that legislation would be seen and enacted before the pathfinders to:

a) shore up trust of the broad definition of purposes to rule out commercial [re]use

b) enact an opt out

c) lend any legal weight to the role of National Data Guardian

Public and professional scrutiny and consultation on these changes will be required to ensure much talked of transparency is seen to be meaningful

2. Pathfinders must not only as the article stated intend to “test all aspects of communication and extraction”  in the pilot, but have a watertight plan for managing the planned broadening of both scope and access [2]

after all, how can communications be tested and considered effective which tell patients only part of the story how their data is planned to be used in future? Its merger with social care data, just one example.

and

3. a clarification was worth noting on the GP position regards opt out; that with certain conditions, the ICO had said that GPs opting out patients at practice level would be lawful regards their Data Protection obligations.

Data protection laws do not prevent doctors from adopting the approach recommended by the group Patient Concern, practice-wide opt out and offering opt-in at local level, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) had said, providing certain conditions are met.

“If GPs choose to opt out all of their patients, then that is an issue for them and NHS England – the Data Protection Act does not prevent it,” said strategic liaison group manager at the ICO, Dawn Monaghan, according to a report in GP Online and Pulse. [3]

“However, the Data Protection Act would still require patients to be given a full explanation of the options open to them, and why the GP has chosen to opt them out.”

The Health and Social Care Act however requires GPs to release data to the HSCIC so would practices be in non-compliance with the Health and Social Care Act by doing so?

NHS England threatened one practice in November 2013 with penalties for doing just that a year ago. In fact, it was that position and article [4] which first prompted me to join the twitter social media debate, and my very first tweet on care.data.

caredata twitter

 

A full year on, and here we are, still unclear on opt out.

A full year on and our HES and other data is still being released without our consent, or fair processing.

Whilst the GPs may remain unclear if they would be sanctioned for practice wide opt out of care.data even if they maintain data protection compliance, it seems the penalty for data misuse after release is unchanged.

Whilst there was talk of new penalties for data misuse by companies and organisations, no ‘one strike and out’ ever materialised.

Whilst legislation by the Secretary of State promised patients a statutory right to opt out, it hasn’t happened.

On February 25th 2014, he said in Parliament:

“people should be able to opt out from having their anonymised data used for the purposes of scientific research.” [col 148]

“When they extended the programme to out-patient data in 2003 and to A and E data in 2008, at no point did they give people the right to opt out. We have introduced that right, which is why we are having the debate.” [5]

However until that opt out for our GP care.data and our A and E, HES, and other data for secondary purposes is on a legal footing, the opt out has no value for patients compared with the weight of the Health and Social Care Act.

When will the Secretary of State follow through on his word?

Right now, our HES/other secondary data is being released even if we have indicated our opt out to GPs for secondary uses, 9nu4. [6]

It appears to date, we lack both legislation and the technical tool to operate the opt out.

This position seems to be in urgent need of clarification for patients to have our opt out rights confirmed for both GP held data and the existing data held by HSCIC. As well as needing clarified for the GPs and HSCIC as data controllers to be clear on their responsibilities.

When the system has proven so flawed in the past we need change to show why it is different now.

It’s not enough to tell patients things will be different. We want to see that they are.

We can only trust a system which is underpinned in law particularly at a time when, ahead of a General Election, many promises may have been made and will be made. Ministers move roles. Their word alone is frankly, going to be of little value to many. Experience tells us, promises may not always turn out as expected in practice.

I asked one of my local community leaders what he thought of the current position on the programme and what his reaction would be if in fact the opt out came to naught and health data was to be extracted and used for research without consent. “We’d be out on the streets,” [in protest] was his prompt reply. Whilst many are happy for data to be used in research, the majority want to know about it first; who will access it and for what purpose. Not everyone is happy for their data to be used in research. And over half were happy only with active consent or not at all, according to a survey carried out by Ipsos MORI in June 2014.[7]

The Data Guardian role [8] too, should be a positive addition to underpin the importance of ethical practice in data management but again, can only be truly meaningful with legislative weight behind it.

The recent DH November announcement said this would happen, ‘at the earliest opportunity.’

How much longer will it be before that opportunity?

When can we expect to see the rules around uses, opt out and the oversight role of the Data Guardian published for public and professional consultation and scrutiny?

If we are to rebuild trust in the programme, it must first offer a foundation for doing so.

*

In the same Pharma Times December issue [2] there is also a feature on George Freeman MP and on EU Data sharing. Well worth a read.

My submitted reader letter:

Your November article ‘Taking care of our data’ states proposed changes to the Care Act 2014 will be laid before Parliament in the new year.

It is imperative this is done before the care.data pilots’ launch. Only meaningful changes underpinned in law will provide patients the basis on which to rebuild their trust in the programme.

Data use purposes remain overly broad, the newly appointed role of National Data Guardian has no legal teeth, and the Health Secretary’s word that a patient’s objection will be respected, is not enough.

The rules around access, oversight and opt out must be pinned down.

And parliamentary scrutiny of these changes, open to professional and public consultation, will be fundamental to public confidence.

Pathfinders must not only ‘‘test all aspects of the communication and extraction process” ready for an imminent rollout. New communications must present real improvements and a watertight plan for managing the planned broadening of the future scope and access.

And finally, one clarification worth noting; under certain conditions, the ICO ruled that GPs opting out patients at practice level would be lawful regards their Data Protection obligations.

Refs:

[1] December Pharma Times p 13

[2] care.data expansion roadmap

[3] GP Online October 22, 2014

[4] Pulse, November 2013

[5] Hansard, February 25th 2014

[6] HSCIC DARS releases

[7] Ipsos MORI poll of almost 2000

[8] National Data Guardian appointed  November 13, 2014

#caredata, care.data, confidentiality, engagement, NHS, NHS England

care.data programme questions remain unanswered – what should patients do now?

care.data programme questions remain unanswered [1] and opportunities to demonstrate better transparency have to date, been turned down.

For anyone interested in the care.data rollout, professionals, patients and public alike, it is worrying to see the continued secrecy which shrouds the programme. We’ve been told online (but most in the public will still not know) an initial rollout in 4 CCG areas is now planned [2], but at which GP practices remains unclear.

On October 12th I asked that the care.data programme board minutes should be made public. The request is still open.[3]

“They seem hell bent on going ahead. I know they listened, but what did they hear?”

Questions asked by hundreds of people at multiple listening events remain unpublished and unanswered. Risks need resolved.

It is ironic that for a programme whose stated aim is to gather patient information in order to answer open questions about care,  it is so unwilling to give information back to answer the questions we, the ‘data subjects’ have about the programme.

I believe it is important to ensure that the questions are transparent, criticisms addressed and clarified, open issues solved and questions answered ahead of the pathfinder rollout to ensure the greatest success of the programme.

If the programme proceeds on an opt out basis, the risk is increased that it will not meet Data Protection regulation[4], which requires informed use of personal data. This puts GPs at risk. [5]

All the people who made the effort to attend these events for the benefit of the programme and the public good deserve answers. This would minimise the risks the public raised, which remain unresolved.

It is also important for maintaining trust in the integrity and value of user participation and engagement at other NHS events, and in this programme in particular.

Public and Transparent Feedback was Promised

I wrote to Mr. Tim Kelsey, Director, at the Patients and Information Directorate, NHS England today to ask, once again, for the release of public feedback.

Now two months ago, when I spoke with him after the NHS AGM in London on September 18th about care.data, the public questions have still not been put into the public domain.

He agreed that the raw feedback from all the care.data listening events, which included all the open questions asked by participants, would be published, “Shortly.”

This feedback includes questions from the NHS Open Days on June 17th  (4 locations), the stand-alone care.data events since, and those from the care.data advisory sessions hosted in Peterborough and Coin Street, London [6].

NHS England claims there have been hundreds of events. The website says some took place in my county, though I haven’t heard of any and neither has my CCG. Those of which I am aware and six attended, all generated a huge number of participant questions on paper, post-its and electronically, which participants were told would be published and answered, including put on the Open Day website ‘later in the summer'[7]:

“Feedback from this session is being incorporated into the overall report from the care.data listening phase which will be published later in the summer and linked to from this site.”

This is still to happen, and now nearing the end of November, is somewhat overdue.

My own questions at four events were on process and I believe it is important to get these clarified BEFORE the pathfinder:

  • How will you communicate with Gillick competent children [8], whose records may contain information about which their parents are not aware? [note also RCGP online roadmap p.15][9]
  • How will you manage this for elderly or vulnerable patients in care homes and with diminished awareness or responsibility?
  • When things change in scope or use, how will we be informed of changing plans for use or users, on an ongoing basis? [Data protection principle 2] [10]
  • For any future changes, how will we be given the choice to change our opt out or opt in? Consent is not a one-time agreement  but needs managed on a continual, rolling basis – how will this be achieved?

Campaigners have also raised remaining, unresolved issues.

Key legal questions remain, including on Opt Out

I am starting to become concerned that the opt out is STILL not on a statutory footing. Will the Secretary of State make good his verbal agreement in law?

What legal changes will be made that back up the verbal guarantees given since February? If none are forthcoming, then were the statements made to Parliament untrue? [11]

“people should be able to opt out from having their anonymised data used for the purposes of scientific research.”

I am yet to see this legal change and to date, the only publicly stated choice is only for identifiable data [12], not all data, as stated by the Minister.

So too the promised extra governance on a legal basis has not yet happened.

It is worth a note that although the Health and Social Care Act 2012 may have steamrollered the legal position of the patient and GP, and that confidentiality no longer comes first, informed consent even if assumed, is still in other circumstances to be obtained fairly:

“Consent obtained under duress or on the basis of misleading information does not adequately satisfy the condition for processing.” [ICO]

Should this principle not also apply even if GPs are legally obliged to release data without patient consent? [I feel that needs more discussion, so will write about consent in my next post.]

There is much made of ‘new legal protection’ of our data but in fact it is impossible to see it provides any such thing, and yes, I have read it. The Care Act 2014 did not get amended with any binding or truly clear provisions to make data more confidential or secure.

Concerns of many people centre on commercial use, and re-use of data, and these are not addressed by the loose terms for the benefit of adult health and social care’ or the ‘promotion of health’. [part 4 p.120] Data sold all year may have met this criteria, but is this how we expect our health records to be used without our express permission?

“We will use Mosiac, appended to the ICD10 code diagnoses, to create national Mosaic profiles. These estimates and propensities will be sold to public and commercial organisations to enable them to target resources more effectively and efficiently…Other data characteristics that are also linked to Mosiac can then be used to understand broader lifestyle characteristics of those most at risk to ensure that messages and communications are appropriate and well targeted.” [July register]

“Question from Leicester: “Are we saying there will be only clinical use of the data – no marketing, no insurance, no profit making? This is our data.”[13]

So I hope it is clear, that these concerns are not only mine, but remain unanswered for the broader participants of listening events, gathered throughout the last year.

Questions from others

I’m publishing here the filtered and NHS England written, summary response of the 26th June event [14], I received as an attendee. (40 people, of whom ca 10 NHS England and HSCIC staff).

I disagreed with one of the statements made at our table at the meeting, and pointed out it was not factual. History as I understand, and has been stated by HSCIC in FOIs, will not be deleted. Yet this was allowed to be included in the notes sent to all:

“communicate that identifiable information can be deleted.”

The workshop was about how to access ‘hard-to-reach’ groups, so focused on communications methods. You will see that many statements are about how to market the programme, and do not clarify questions of substance, although many were asked on the day about scope definition, and future data changes.

Questions have not yet been addressed, such as Gillick, on children in care, young offenders, the forces, avoiding ‘propaganda-ish’ sounding and bias in the materials, to ensure the ‘adequate requirements’ for data processing.

You can see from this, that although the listening events may be deemed to have been a success, the answering part is still missing.

How are NHS England measuring success? What does good look like? I guarantee from a public perspective, it’s not there yet.

Long term benefit must not be harmed in the rush for a pilot tick-box

Since the programme is heralded as so vital for the NHS, I believe we should not be making the best of a bad job, but shaping process, security and communications to be world class, worthy of our NHS.[15]

We also need to see a long-term cost benefit plan – if we don’t know how some of these future processes are to be managed, how will we know what they will cost, and are they worth it?

The project should not aim for a quick and dirty pilot rollout. Perhaps there is a need to tick the ‘on time’ box for an NHS England target or meet a job description appraisal, as I would have had when I was responsible for project implementations in my past commercial industry role?

As it stands it is not NHS England/DoH who has the most to lose if this goes ahead as is. They must look at the big picture and accept their responsibility for this project, decide not to rush it and not expect the public and GPs to carry its risk.

At the weekend, in a speech about TTIP I heard the phrase, it’s “a classic case of socialising the risk and privatising the profit.”

So too it feels for me on care.data. NHS England wants all the benefit of our information, including from its sale, but it is we, individual patients and GPs who will be harmed if its security, commercial use [16], or everyday trust & confidentiality are compromised.

The Department of Health must look beyond party political aims pre-election. This is for the good of the NHS, which belongs to us all.

We must see open questions on process and content openly answered, for professionals and public alike.

Only then, can we trust that the infrastructure and promises made behind the scenes have set the foundation for this scheme to be worthy of our most intimate and confidential data.[17]

What can Patients do now?

“The policy and practical answers we need to ensure success, will not fit on a flyer or SMS.”

I have spoken with some of my fellow attendees since these events, including for example Stan Burridge, the Research Lead on Service User Involvement at Pathway London. (A charity providing healthcare to the homeless and which works with others on policy and best-practice approach sharing. Their recent work on dentistry outreach achieved a 0% no-show rate – getting the vital care needed for their clients and saving ££ for NHS dentist provision.)

His comments are a good summary of what has happened since:

“In the events, opinions could be expressed, questions asked, and I was made to feel they were valid questions, but they’re doing very little to answer them so that it makes a difference.

“I feel I was engaged with the process, but it’s doing nothing for the people on the margins.

“They should be given an informed choice to opt in, an uninformed choice not to opt out is not the same.

It is unclear what patients can now do, to get the answers we have asked for. We want to make a positive difference to make the project better.

The listening events seem to have been a one way process, and participation for PR purposes, rather than real engagement. The policy and practical answers we need to ensure success, will not fit on a flyer or SMS. They can’t be communicated as part of the pilot rollout. We need them published, addressed and ironed out up front.

Stan summed up exactly what I feel and what I have heard from many others:

“They seem hell bent on going ahead. I know they listened, but what did they hear?”

 

****

[1] A patient’s open letter to NHS England

[2] CCG pathfinder announcement

[3] care.data programme board minutes and materials FOI

[4] ICO Guide to Data Protection

[5] Medical Protection and care.data concern

[6] Coin Street care.data advisory group public event, Sept 6th

[7] NHS England Open House event 17th June

[8] Gillick and data protection for children

[9] RCGP Online Roadmap, includes concern on accessing data by those at risk of domestic abuse and children

[10] ICO Data Protection guidelines

[11] Hansard, Parliament 25th February 2014

[12] Parliamentary briefing note on care.data

[13] Questions from the Open House, incl. Leicester

[14] NHS England summary of feedback and statements from public event at Mencap, June 26th 2014

[15] Post from July 21st HSCIC roadmap event, future data use

[16] Commercial use of data with brokers – call for consumer data transparency

[17] Code list prepared by medConfidential and open issues

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

Deregulation – the UK Bill and the Titanic TTIP

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

Deregulation Bill

 [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:

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

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)

Food Standards Agency (FSA)

Forestry Commission

Gambling Commission

Gangmasters Licensing Authority (GLA)

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

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)

Water Services Regulation Authority (OFWAT)

#caredata, NHS England, poetry, words

An ode to care (dot) data

To be or not to be, that is the question.
O, what men dare do!
Two gentleman of Verona
Measure for measure
and in a Midsummer’s Night’s Dream
And like the baseless fabric of this vision
imagined there would be much ado about nothing.
Mum’s the word!
But this denoted a foregone conclusion.
Open-eyed conspiracy!
Wherefore are these things hid?

Oft expectation fails, and most oft there
Where most it promises.
The plan would be a winter’s tale.
But as you like it
or as not
Damn’d be him that first cries, ‘hold enough’!
These tedious old fools!
The tempest doth make delay.

Will the work done be love’s labour lost?
Will the storm nay be calmed?
Sigh no more, ladies, sigh no more,
Men were deceivers ever.

Would they want that chinks be earned
Gold? Yellow, glittering, precious gold?
No, Gods, I am no idle votarist!
All gold and silver rather turn to dirt!
As ’tis no better reckon’d, but of those
who have want.
“Shylock, we would have moneys,” you say so
the pound of flesh which I demand of him
is dearly bought. ‘Tis mine.

What might be toward, that this sweaty haste
Doth make the night joint-laborer with the day:
Who is’t that can inform me?
Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears!
Who bare my letter, then, to Romeo?
The letter was not nice but full of charge,
Of dear import, and the neglecting it
May do much danger!

Ignorance is the curse of God;
knowledge is the wing wherewith we fly to heaven.
No legacy is so rich as honesty.

For all this same, I’ll hide me hereabout.
His looks I fear, and his intents I doubt.
And exempt from public haunt,
finds tongues in trees.
You are thought here to the most senseless and fit man for the job.
Alas poor Yorrick
a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy.
Conscience doth make cowards of us all.

And enterprises of great pitch and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action.
What’s more to do,
Which would be planted newly with the time,
How poor are they that have not patience!
Yet, do thy worst, old Time: despite thy wrong.

Don’t trust the person who has broken faith once?
The quality of mercy is not strain’d
I have spoke thus much
To mitigate the justice of thy plea
If we should fail –
We fail!
But screw your courage to the sticking-place,
And we’ll not fail.
All’s well if all ends well.
Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none.

Now this overdone or come tardy off,
though it make the unskillful laugh,
cannot but make the judicious grieve,
the censure of the which one must in your allowance
o’erweigh a whole theatre of others.

What’s done can’t be undone.
Forget, forgive, conclude, and be agreed: Our doctors say this is no time to bleed.

*****
Words taken in tribute,  from the works of Shakespeare
(23 April 1564 – 23 April 1616). 
All his words, not necessarily in the right order.
Celebrated on the date of the 450th anniversary of his birth, on  Metro considered, what if Shakespeare had Twitter?