Money from thin air
Or the case of the incredible conjurors at the DoH. I am surprised as to how the NHS can have a backlog of over 4 billion pounds in essential repairs (note, essential means important stuff, like leaking roofs, dodgy drainage systems etc, the kind that led to Maidstone being in the news with commodes not being fixed for example) and yet be in the black to the tune of 1 billion pounds. This is after the savage cuts to education & training, public health and other vital budgetary areas over the past couple of years and serves to illustrate the lengths the NHS went to in order to save Patricia Hewitt’s job.
Kudos though to the membership of the BMA for their principled stand over the eligibility of non-EEA doctors to continue their training in the UK. I’m glad to see that the BMA has come out with a strong statement though it remains to be seen if it is diluted down when it comes to implementation. After all, there is a lot in the Tooke report that while not exactly a red flag, bears careful watching.
“The thousands of overseas junior doctors currently providing essential services in UK hospitals must not be scapegoated for the government’s poor workforce planning,” said Dr Terry John, chairman of the BMA’s International Committee.
“They came to the UK in good faith and in the honest expectation of training opportunities in the NHS.”
Limiting new entrants to post-grad training might be something to consider but destroying the careers of those already here is unconscionable.
Even the French appear to recognise that the lot of the UK GP is not a happy one with them being very concerned about the future of General Practice in the UK.
“However, 87% were concerned for the future of general practice, second only to the Spanish at 90% and above Germany at 84%, Italy at 83% and France at 79%.
Dr Richard Vautrey, deputy chairman of the British Medical Association’s GPs committee, said recent media coverage of GPs was taking its toll.
“There’s a sense that the government doesn’t value general practice highly nor understand what it does and how it responds to need.
“There’s a constant perception being put across that others can do this job just as well.”
Having already made a mess of the provision of Out of Hours cover, does the DoH really want to meddle in General Practice?
And finally, have not seen much publicity about this decision by the Scottish Information Commissioner’s office regarding the release of contracts for PFI facilities. If the argument that there is an overriding public interest is upheld on appeal (to the Court of Session - I suspect that there will be one) then look out for an avalanche of similar applications in England! I might have a few to put in myself, following up on a few of my inquiries over the years. Of course the legislation is different but I do not see the underlying principles being all that dissimilar.
Facts
Ms Docherty requested a copy of the PFI contract relating to the construction, maintenance and provision of support services for the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh from Lothian NHS Board (NHS Lothian). NHS Lothian responded by informing Ms Docherty that it considered the information to be exempt under section 36(2) of FOISA. Following a review which upheld the initial decision, Ms Docherty remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
NHS Lothian consistently failed, during the course of the investigation, to present an appropriate case for the application of any FOISA exemption. The Commissioner did not accept NHS Lothian’s arguments, raised during the investigation, that the cost of compliance with the request would be excessive. As a result, the Commissioner concluded that the contract in question should be released to Ms Docherty, subject to the removal or redaction of personal data which did not fall within the scope of Ms Docherty’s request.
The Information Commissioner had this to point out:
30. Where an authority seeks to withhold information in response to a FOISA request, it will be the responsibility of the authority alone to apply any appropriate exemption, and the application of any such exemption must therefore be considered fully, carefully and appropriately by that authority.
31. While it may frequently be appropriate for authorities to seek comment and opinion from third parties in relation to information which might, for example, give rise to an actionable breach of confidence if disclosed, this information should be used to inform the authority’s own consideration. In many cases, third parties will argue vigourously for the non-disclosure of such information, but the authority will be required to assess those arguments independently in the context of the relevant FOISA exemption before ultimately deciding whether or not that exemption should be applied.
So just passing on the messages from the third party involved (Consort in this case) will not suffice. More work for the lawyers then! I presume that Allyson Pollock will have a good read. I look forward to her analysis.
Addendum:
Later in the day, found this had been released!
Freedom of Information laws could be extended to cover some private firms and planned increases in the cost of making such requests have been axed.
Let us see what the fine print says. Please make your views known in the consultation exercise.