A couple of news items that are not covered by corporate news sources: the first UK Uncut Fortnum and Mason trial and the ConDem government refusing open discussion of Babar Ahmed.
Today my trial for a two hour UKuncut sit-in at Fortnum & Mason ended far faster than anyone estimated. The trial was scheduled to end on the November 30th, however a thin prosecution case was over in just 2 and half days.
Among the officers taking the stand was Inspector Clark – the chief police officer at the scene whom had been at the sit-in in Fortnum and Mason for the duration. She confirmed her view that we were all “sensible and well behaved”.
Clark was the officer filmed telling protesters that they would not be arrested before the systematic arrest of everyone taking part in the sit-in.
What became painfully apparent today was the arbitrary nature of the arrests on March 26th.
In his evidence Chief Inspector Dean admitted that he was under instruction to use his discretion “to let peaceful protesters go”, however decided to ‘mass arrest’ 145 people on site.
This blanket arrest has caused great stress and worry not just for the arrestees but for many family members and friends. Most arrestees where further held in solitary for 24 hours and many were denied access to a lawyer. 13 of my friends from Birmingham were in the store with me and it was particularly hard on some.
Now that senior police officer admit the arrestees where “sensible and well behaved”, it should be asked what the aim of the major police operation on March 26th was.
Under increasing scrutiny the operation looks increasing aimed stifling political protesters and perhaps even an intelligence gathering exercise.
The prosecution have now finished giving their evidence and ultimately their argument is that we took part in a protest. They are not attributing any ‘act’ to the defendants except for ‘not withdrawing’.
We don’t think we have a “case to answer” and so after making the point that this does not amount to any crime, have closed our case too.
The Judge has called recess until Wednesday; when the court will reconvene and we expect closing statements from both the prosecution and the defence for a verdict is reached.
Thanks for all the solidarity we have received so far. All the defendants in the current case want to express their solidarity to everyone fighting against cuts and all facing trial for protesting. Good luck everyone standing up and taking action in coming weeks on both the 23rd of November to defend education and on 30th of November in the largest strike in a generation.
In parliament last August, the prime minister declared that: “One of the points of the new e-petitions website is to make sure that if a certain level of signatures is reached, the matter will be debated in the house, whether we like it or not. That is an important way of empowering people.” The level required is 100,000. The e-petition asking for a parliamentary debate on the question of a trial for Babar Ahmed in this country, where his alleged offence took place, rather than extraditing him to the US, has 140,000 signatures (Is it justice to lock up Babar Ahmed so long without trial?, 6 November). Now the backbench business committee has decided that there will be no debate, but instead the question can be added on to a pre-existing debate in Westminster Hall on 24 November. Not surprisingly, Babar Ahmed’s family has not accepted the Westminster Hall offer. The 140,000 individual signatories to the Ahmed family’s petition are being disempowered by this cavalier decision by a committee few of them have ever heard of, and which contradicts David Cameron’s public promise. A parliamentary debate should be scheduled as soon as possible.
Geoffrey Bindman QC
Victoria Brittain
Bruce Kent
The banks have run the global economy into the ground. Bankers, encouraged by the government, gambled recklessly with our money, and they lost. Spectacularly. Remember 2008? In the UK, the government decided it had to step in with a bail-out because these banks were ‘too big to fail’. According to the Bank of England, the cost of this bail-out now exceeds £1trillion. The result is that all high street banks- from Barclays to RBS- owe their existence to public financing.
What did we get for our billions? A banking system that serves ordinary people rather than the super-rich? No. Regretful bankers who refuse to reward themselves with massive bonuses? No. How about increased financial regulation to ensure this crisis couldn’t happen again? No. The government has done nothing to stop it being business as usual for banks.
What’s worse, the money that was given to the bankers is the money now being taken from the poorest in society, guaranteeing a rise in poverty, debt and inequality. Nearly £7 billion will be paid out in bank bonuses this year. This sum is more than the first wave of public spending cuts. We are not all in this together because it’s us who will pay if education, health, housing, libraries, woodland and much, much more, disappears from our lives.
Who’s telling us we must make these cuts? A government led by a cabinet of millionaires, in bed with the bankers, which is now pulling off an audacious con-trick in front of our eyes.
This is how their story goes. The crisis was caused by a bloated public sector. We binged away all our money on luxuries like healthcare and free education and council services, care for the elderly, for people with disabilities, school sports and free school meals for children living in poverty. Now the country is bankrupt and we must repent, detox, cut back. We have to relinquish our welfare state to appease the circling money men. Welcome to the Age of Austerity but don’t worry because we are all in this together.
We say – don’t believe their lies. This is their crisis, but there is no austerity for the bankers.
Conservative election poster 2010
A few recent news articles about the UK’s Conservative and Liberal-Democrat (Conservative) coalition government – the ConDem’s – brutal attack on the National Health Service.
Hospital bosses are facing claims they are cutting post-surgery care because it is an “easy target” to save cash.
The ratio of patient checks following operations has dropped over the past two years and looks set to be cut again.
Advertisement >>
Critics warned that patients are being discharged back to GPs too early and family doctors may not have the time, funding or necessary skills to deal with problems.
Richard Hoey, editor of Pulse magazine, which analysed data from all 168 acute hospital trusts in England, said: “Reducing post-operative checks has been seen as an easy target by NHS managers looking for efficiencies. Often they will leave patients short of the follow-up care they’d expect.”
Based on last year’s total of 10.1 million operations, calculations show there were 22.2 million post-surgery appointments.
This is 1.2 million fewer than would have been expected based on 2009/10 rates – and 1.6 million fewer than four years ago.
However, the drop may be even higher as the number of operations carried out on the NHS is increasing year on year.
But the Department of Health insisted: “All patients with a clinical need for a follow-up appointment in hospital should have one.
“We have not set targets to reduce such appointments and have no plans to do so.”
GPs say they are referring patients on one set of criteria, only for the patients to be told during pre-operative hospital checks that they no longer qualify.
Dr Clare Gerada, chair of the Royal College of GPs, said primary care trusts (PCTs) – which pay for pre-planned operations – were guilty of treating patients like “commodities”.
She said: “Patients must not be treated as commodities and pushed back and forwards.”
PCTs started tightening up on qualifying criteria for ‘elective’ operations at least a year ago, for example demanding that patients had to demonstrate higher thresholds of pain or disability before being allowed hip or knee replacements. Other common procedures affected include removals of cataract and skin tissue like bunions and gangalions.
Some believe this rationing is reflected in NHS statistics which show the number of overall referrals from GP has dropped in the last year.
Related Links
You might like:
* Stem cell test is ‘biggest breakthrough in treating heart attacks for a generation’14 Nov 2011(Telegraph Health)
* Teenager has operation in two hospitals at same time15 Nov 2011(Telegraph Health)
* Mirror trick could ease arthritis14 Nov 2011(Telegraph Health)
From the Web
FORM THE WEB
:
* Doctor: 4 Warning Signs of an Imminent Stroke20 Sep 2011(Newsmax.com)
* 10 Ways to Lower Your Cholesterol Naturally01 Dec 1969(Lifescript)
* Improved Quality of Life After Tonsillectomy for Patients of All Ages03 Jan 2008(MedPage Today)
[what’s this]
However, this is the first time it has emerged that patients are being approved for referral, and later told they cannot have an operation.
GPs told Pulse, a magazine for doctors, that the practice was going on in London and Buckinghamshire.
Dr Jim Kennedy, medical director of the local medical committee (LMC) for Berks, Bucks and Oxon, said: “Patients have gone down the [care] pathway after being accepted under old thresholds and suddenly are denied care using a different threshold. That is clearly unfair.
“Our main priority is to make sure if a patient is admitted under one set of criteria, those rules are applied throughout the process.”
…
Labour intends to force a vote in the Lords to suspend considering the Health and Social Care / Destroy the NHS Bill until the secret report on its risks to the NHS is released by the Con-Dem scum government. The Information Commissioner has ruled that the suppressed report should be published.
I can exclusively reveal a brief summary of the suppressed report. It says“The Health and Social Care Bill is likely to destroy the NHS as a viable health care system. Having abolished the NHS, private healthcare and health insurance will develop on the American model. The plebs will be f****d but the ultra-rich who don’t use the NHS will be fine”.
The government suffered a minor defeat on the Health and Social Care / Destroy the NHS Bill in the House of Lords over the issue of charities having to pay VAT. There is symbolism to this defeat i.e. further aspects can be defeated.
Cathy Warwick, chief executive of the Royal College of Midwives has criticied the Health and Social Care / Destroy the NHS Bill as a ‘pointless waste’ and attacked the banks for causing the huge national debt.
Philip Green is a multi-billionaire businessman, who runs some of the biggest names on British high streets. His retail empire includes brands such as Topshop, Topman, Dorothy Perkins, Burton, Miss Selfridge and British Home Stores.
Philip Green is not a non-dom. He lives in the UK. He works in the UK. He pays tax on his salary in the UK. All seems to be in order. Until you realise that Philip Green does not actually own any of the Arcadia group that he spends every day running. Instead, it is in the name of his wife who has not done a single day’s work for the company. Mrs Green lives in Monaco, where she pays not a penny of income tax.
In 2005 Philip Green awarded himself £1.2bn, the biggest paycheck in British corporate history. But this dividend payout was channeled through a network of offshore accounts, via tax havens in Jersey and eventually to Green’s wife’s Monaco bank account. The dodge saved Green, and cost the tax payer, close to £300m. This tax arrangement remains in place. Any time it takes his fancy, Green can pay himself huge sums of money without having to pay any tax.
Before the election, the Lib Dems liked to talk tough on tax avoiders. But as soon as they entered the coalition, this pre-election bluster became just another inconvenient promise they quietly forgot. In August David Cameron appointed the country’s most notorious serial-tax avoider to advise the government on how best to slash public spending. Not a single Lib Dem minister uttered a word of complaint. A Guardian editorial denounced this as “shameful”.
Philip Green’s £285m tax dodge could pay for:
* The full, hiked up £9,000 fees for almost 32,000 students * Pay the salaries of 20,000 NHS nurses
And if that’s not reason enough to take action against Sir Philip, it is worth noting that he has built his £5bn fortune on the back of sweatshop labour, using Mauritius sweatshops where Sri Lankans, Indians and Bangladeshis toil 12 hours a day, six days a week, for minimal pay.
A few recent news articles about the UK’s Conservative and Liberal-Democrat (Conservative) coalition government – the ConDem’s – brutal attack on the National Health Service.
Labour will force a vote in the House of Lords this Wednesday to put further pressure on the Government to release its assessment of the risks to the NHS posed by its re-organisation.
Last week, the Information Commissioner ordered the release of the Department’s risk register, following pressure by Labour. The Government has fought to keep it out of the public domain and has yet to respond to the ruling.
On Wednesday, Labour will ask the House of Lords to postpone further consideration of the Health & Social Care Bill until the register has been released.
Andy Burnham MP, Labour’s Shadow Health Secretary, has today written to Andrew Lansley requesting immediate release and said:
“Following this ruling, Andrew Lansley has nowhere left to hide. The information is vital to a full understanding of his Bill and the risks it poses to the NHS.
“I have always said that combining the biggest ever reorganisation and facing the financial challenge will expose the NHS to unacceptable risk.
“The ruling clearly said it’s in the public interest to have this information in the public domain. If he digs in and fights this, people will begin to ask what has the Health Secretary has to hide.”
Baroness Thornton, Labour’s Shadow Health Minister, speaking at the start of proceedings this afternoon, described the document’s publication as “completely pertinent” to the passage of the Bill through the Lords. Glenys Thornton called on the Government to make the document readily available before Wednesday, or Labour will force a vote in the Lords to suspend the Bill’s reading until the register is released.
…
The Government has suffered a defeat in the Lords over its controversial health care reforms.
The Government has suffered a defeat in the Lords over its controversial health care reforms.
Peers voted by 195 to 183, majority 12, to require the Health Secretary to report on the VAT treatment of supplies by charities providing health care services for the NHS.
It was the first defeat inflicted on ministers during the Health and Social Care Bill’s marathon 14-day report stage.
Moving the amendment to the Bill, Labour’s Lord Patel of Bradford warned of “major inequality” over irrecoverable VAT for charities providing health care services.
He said that while the NHS was able to recover VAT on certain supplies, charities were not.
And when services were transferred from the NHS to the charitable sector there was a “VAT gap” that had to be filled by charitable funds.
…
The NHS reforms are ‘yet another pointless reorganisation’ that will ‘waste’ several billion pounds, the head of the Royal College of Midwives has warned.
Cathy Warwick, chief executive of the College, said the reforms, which will see doctors-led groups handling most of the NHS budget, were ‘risky and ill-thought through’.
Speaking at the annual conference in Brighton, Prof Warwick also attacked the banks, saying irresponsible and reckless behaviour’ had caused the huge national debt and the pensions of public sector workers, including midwives, were being sacrificed to clear the black hole.
She warned that maternity services were being stretched and midwives’ pensions were being sacrificed in order to clear the national debt ’caused by the irresponsible and reckless behaviour of the banks’.
The proportion of NHS money spent on maternity care is at its lowest point since the 1990s, Prof Warwick said, despite the country facing a major baby boom.
She added: “There is a growing disparity between the increasing demands that are made on midwives and the dwindling resources that they have at their disposal.
“This is compounded by a widening gap between the rhetoric about how maternity services should be and the reality that midwives experience on a daily basis.
“When it comes to staffing, the rhetoric is that there are more midwives than ever before.
“The reality in England is that the midwifery shortage is becoming a crisis.
“Yes the number of midwives in England has increased but by nowhere near enough to keep pace with the growth in their workload.”
On funding, she said the rhetoric was that the NHS budget has been maintained and there are no cuts to front line services.
“The reality, as you will know all too well, is that budgets are being squeezed and services are being cut.”
…
HMRC head David Hartnett attended 107 events in three years, with accountancy firms among those extending largesse
Britain’s most senior official in charge of collecting tax was named yesterday as the most wined and dined mandarin in Whitehall. According to an investigation, David Hartnett, the permanent secretary for tax at HM Revenue and Customs, accepted invitations to eat and drink 107 times over the past three years.
Prominent among those extending corporate largesse were the top accountancy firms, which are paid by big business to find ways of avoiding paying tax.
Hartnett, 59, who lists his recreations as food and wine in Who’s Who, has been accused of being too cosy with large corporations. He emerged top of the league in an investigation by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, a not-for-profit body based at City University London, which collated more than 3,000 instances of hospitality given to top civil servants in the past three years.
Hartnett sat down with representatives of the “big four” accountancy firms 27 times. He ate with KPMG 10 times and went to one reception. He also accepted hospitality from PricewaterhouseCoopers seven times, Ernst & Young four times and Deloitte three. Last September he clocked up four dinners, two lunches and two breakfasts paid for by, among others, unnamed private equity chief executives, PWC and KMPG. On 17 September he had breakfast courtesy of the now merged City firms JP Morgan and Cazenove, followed by lunch the same day with accountants from BDO Stoy Hayward.
Corporate hospitality is part of Hartnett’s approach to raising tax from big firms. Rather than confronting them, he has relied on persuading them to pay their share of tax.
Protesters are descending on Whitehall today to demand the resignation of HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) boss Dave Hartnett for his role in approving deals that allow big companies to avoid billions in tax.
Activists from UK Uncut and Occupy London are protesting Hartnett’s role in approving “secret sweetheart deals” to allow feral companies to dodge billions in tax – money that could have been used to fund public services going into the pockets of the irresponsible rich.
Hartnett was made to answer MPs’ questions over the scandal, which enabled Vodafone and Goldman Sachs to effectively rob the taxpayer of £6 billion and £10 million respectively. MPs on the public accounts committee have accused Hartnett of abusing his position to “cover up his own mistakes”.
A survey in 2010 revealed Hartnett to be Britain’s most ‘wined and dined’ civil servant, treated by corporations 107 times in three years. Commentators from across the political spectrum and even Conservative MPs have also called on Hartnett to resign.
“HMRC has just announced it will be going after 146,000 pensioners to demand hundreds of pounds from them following a tax code cock-up. Meanwhile, its boss is striking secret deals with opulent corporations to let them off billions of pounds in tax.
“Hartnett is fatally undermining public confidence in the UK’s tax system at a time of austerity and he must resign immediately.”
“Whilst 25,000 rank-and-file staff at HMRC have been fired, leaving the organisation almost incapable of functioning, Hartnett has been carving out a career as the most ‘wined and dined’ civil servant in Whitehall.
“The money from Vodafone’s £6bn tax dodge alone could have prevented all of the cuts in public services over the past year.”
HM Revenue & Customs officials were criticised yesterday for allowing Vodafone to pay just £1.25bn in a tax dispute with the Government, despite a potential tax bill of what could be as much as £8bn.
MPs from the Commons Public Accounts Committee quizzed tax officials over deals made with Vodafone and investment bank Goldman Sachs. HMRC branded reports earlier this year that Vodafone escaped paying £6bn in tax “absurd”.
But Stephen Barclay, an MP on the committee, put the possible sum even higher. “We are looking at potentially £8bn of tax lost,” he said. “We’re looking at a company that was given five years to pay even though it was sitting on a cash pile.”
HMRC officials were also questioned about a debt deal with Goldman Sachs, which is believed could have cost the taxpayer a potential £10m.
Tax chief Dave Hartnett said an error that slashed Goldman Sachs’ debt was dealt with through a staff member’s annual appraisal. HMRC has been accused of giving Goldman a “sweetheart” deal that waived £10m of interest on a £30m bill from a failed tax avoidance scheme on bankers’ bonuses. Mr Hartnett is said to have personally sealed the agreement with a Goldman executive last November, after being advised by an official that there was a “legal impediment” to charging interest.
Conservative election poster 2010
A few recent news articles about the UK’s Conservative and Liberal-Democrat (Conservative) coalition government – the ConDem’s – brutal attack on the National Health Service.
Clare Gerada tells the New Statesman: “This reform is so large you can see it from outer space”
In this week’s magazine, Clare Gerada, physician and chairman of the Royal College of General Practitioners, talks to the New Statesman’s Sophie Elmhirst about her fears for the future of the NHS, David Cameron’s betrayal, and the ways in which patients will suffer as a result of Health Secretary Andrew Lansley’s reforms:
We’ve got three big things going on at the same time – a massive reorganisation of the health service, alongside a serious financial situation, alongside the NHS having to make £20bn efficiency savings. So it is difficult to say which one is going to cause “X, Y, Z”, but certainly patients are going to experience longer waiting lists; they’ll see less choice available. Irrespective of whether the government says there is going to be more choice: there won’t be more choice.
In line with the General Practitioners’ Committee’s stance against the reform bill’s Quality Premium, Gerada is outspoken about performance-related bonuses for GPs:
In the [reform] bill, the government is suggesting that GPs be rewarded for keeping in budget. There is no problem in GPs having an incentive to practise good, evidence-based medicine. Where it becomes a step too far is where we are rewarded for keeping patients out of hospital. Because you have to trust me, you have to trust that I have stopped you from going to hospital because it is in your best interests, not because I am going to get £10, £15, £20 or whatever it is. And that begins to distort the doctor/patient relationship, which has to be fundamentally built upon trust — otherwise what’s the point of it?
Gerada speaks of being “absolutely surprised” by the reforms proposed by a coalition government she has had no discussions with:
Like others, I heard David Cameron say “no top-down reorganisation of the NHS”. I was so relieved, because I had lived through 15 reorganisations . . . [But this reform] isn’t so much putting GPs in charge of commissioning, but about dismantling the systems and the architecture of the NHS.
The NHS is our NHS. It is one of the last things that we as the people – the taxpayers – own, and by owning it our Health Secretary and our parliament is responsible for it. For £120 billion of taxpayers’ money, somebody has to be accountable to parliament. . . . It is symbolic if [Health Secretary Andrew Lansley] is no longer accountable for our national health service.
A groundbreaking £1bn, 10-year deal for a private firm to run a struggling NHS hospital has been confirmed.
Circle, which is part-listed on the London Stock Exchange, is to take over Hinchingbrooke hospital in Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, from 1 February 2012.
The deal will see Circle assume the financial risks of making the hospital more efficient and paying off its debts but the hospital will stay in the NHS.
The company must maintain services but unions fear staff numbers could be cut.
Although private sector firms already operate units that treat NHS patients – such as hip replacement centres – the firm will become the first non-state provider to manage a full range of NHS district general hospital services.
Hinchingbrooke hospital is one of about 20 hospitals in England which has faced an uncertain future, and the possibility of closure, because of long-term financial problems.
It is carrying about £40m of debt and its financial status has been given a high risk red rating by the NHS. The franchise deal with Circle was developed after concerns that the hospital had become unviable, and a local campaign to maintain services.
Circle describes itself as a social enterprise because 49.9% is owned by a partnership of employees. Others see it as a private business as the rest is owned by its parent company, Circle Holdings, which is listed on the stock market.
…
I consider this posting to comply with copyright laws since
a. Only a small portion of the original article has been quoted satisfying the fair use criteria, and / or
b. This posting satisfies the requirements of a derivative work.
Please be assured that this blog is a non-commercial blog (weblog) which does not feature advertising and has not ever produced any income.
Cameron and Lansley have been claiming that NHS cancer figures are bad while actually they are extrememly good.
38 Degrees explain their legal advice about the Health Secretary’s responsibilities: It’s about distancing the Health Secretary from responsibilty for the NHS.
The banks have run the global economy into the ground. Bankers, encouraged by the government, gambled recklessly with our money, and they lost. Spectacularly. Remember 2008? In the UK, the government decided it had to step in with a bail-out because these banks were ‘too big to fail’. According to the Bank of England, the cost of this bail-out now exceeds £1trillion. The result is that all high street banks- from Barclays to RBS- owe their existence to public financing.
What did we get for our billions? A banking system that serves ordinary people rather than the super-rich? No. Regretful bankers who refuse to reward themselves with massive bonuses? No. How about increased financial regulation to ensure this crisis couldn’t happen again? No. The government has done nothing to stop it being business as usual for banks.
What’s worse, the money that was given to the bankers is the money now being taken from the poorest in society, guaranteeing a rise in poverty, debt and inequality. Nearly £7 billion will be paid out in bank bonuses this year. This sum is more than the first wave of public spending cuts. We are not all in this together because it’s us who will pay if education, health, housing, libraries, woodland and much, much more, disappears from our lives.
Who’s telling us we must make these cuts? A government led by a cabinet of millionaires, in bed with the bankers, which is now pulling off an audacious con-trick in front of our eyes.
This is how their story goes. The crisis was caused by a bloated public sector. We binged away all our money on luxuries like healthcare and free education and council services, care for the elderly, for people with disabilities, school sports and free school meals for children living in poverty. Now the country is bankrupt and we must repent, detox, cut back. We have to relinquish our welfare state to appease the circling money men. Welcome to the Age of Austerity but don’t worry because we are all in this together.
We say – don’t believe their lies. This is their crisis, but there is no austerity for the bankers.
Conservative election poster 2010
A few recent news articles about the UK’s Conservative and Liberal-Democrat (Conservative) coalition government – the ConDem’s – brutal attack on the National Health Service.
The prime minister and health secretary have criticised the NHS on cancer, but new figures suggest the service is a world leader
David Cameron and Andrew Lansley’s repeated criticisms of the NHS’s record on cancer have been contradicted by new research that shows the health service to be an international leader in tackling the disease.
The findings challenge the government’s claims that NHS failings on cancer contribute to 5,000-10,000 unnecessary cancer deaths a year, which ministers have used as a key reason for pushing through their radical shakeup of the service.
In fact, the NHS in England and Wales has helped achieve the biggest drop in cancer deaths and displayed the most efficient use of resources among 10 leading countries worldwide, according to the study published in the British Journal of Cancer.
“These results challenge the feeble justification of the government’s changes, which appear to be based upon overhyped media representation, rather than hard comparable evidence. This paper should be a real boost to cancer patients and their families because the NHS’s performance on cancer is much better than the media presents. It challenges the government’s assertion that the NHS is inefficient and ineffective at treating cancer – an argument for reforming the NHS,” said Prof Colin Pritchard, a health academic at Bournemouth University.
…
A few months ago, we asked one of the legal experts we funded for his view on the “autonomy clause”, or Clause 4 in the bill.
The full advice is here, but below are the main points on the “hands-off clause”.
Our legal advice:
30. However, what is proposed to be a new section 1C of the NHS Act 2006, does seem to me to be of importance. This would read
―1C Duty as to promoting autonomy
In exercising functions in relation to the health service, the Secretary of State must, so far as is consistent with the interests of the health service, act with a view to securing—
(a) that any other person exercising functions in relation to the health service or providing services for its purposes is free to exercise those functions or provide those services in the manner that it considers most appropriate, and
(b) that unnecessary burdens are not imposed on any such person.”
31. Therefore, so long as the Secretary of State does not think that it is inconsistent with the interests of the NHS, s/he must positively act to allow any other person exercising health service functions to do so in the way that that person thinks appropriate. This is what I described in conference as a “hands off” clause. Although the Secretary of State keeps some form of oversight, it is the other persons and bodies delivering the health service whose views are important as to how those services are to be delivered. This is further explained in the Explanatory Notes as follows
74. This clause seeks to establish an overarching principle that the Secretary of State should act with a view to promoting autonomy in the health service. It identifies two constituent elements of autonomy: freedom forbodies/persons in the health service (such as commissioning consortia or Monitor) to exercise their functions in a manner they consider most appropriate (1C(a)), and not imposing unnecessary burdens from those bodies/persons (1C(b)). The clause requires the Secretary of State to act with a view to securing these aspects of autonomy in exercising his functions in relation to the health service, so far as is consistent with the interests of the health service.
75. This duty would therefore require the Secretary of State, when considering whether to place requirements on the NHS, to make a judgement as to whether these were in the interests of the health service. If challenged, the Secretary of State would have to be able to justify why these requirements were necessary.
32. This kind of wording is often used in statutes to mean that a public body only has the power to act when steps to be taken are “really needed” or “essential”, rather than because the public body thinks something is desirable or appropriate. A court looking at this kind of wording would expect the public body (the Secretary of State in this case) to demonstrate why no other course of action could be followed, which is a high test to meet.
33. I think the reference to potential challenges at the end of this note is significant and reflects the limit of the Secretary of State’s powers. If the Secretary of State attempts to use his or her powers to impose requirements on commissioning consortia, for example, then there could well be a judicial review challenge from a consortium which opposed the requirements on the basis that they infringed the principle of autonomy in the new section 1C and could not be justified as necessary or essential. This approach replaces the, more or less, unfettered power that the Secretary of State has to make directions currently to be found in s8 NHS Act 2006 (as explained above), with a duty not to interfere unless essential to do so. It is also noteworthy that the same “autonomy” or “hands off” duty is also placed on the NHS Commissioning Board, by what would be a new s13E of the NHS Act 2006 (and it is, of course, the Board who will have closer contact with commissioning consortia than will the Secretary of State).
