In the midst of what will no doubt be ever-increasing levels of speculation about what actions could be taken, two realities will be at the forefront of the chancellor’s mind – money is tight, and demand for it is fierce.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in relation to healthcare and the NHS. Just a few months ago, the government unveiled the 10-Year Health Plan, a revolutionary paper to update the NHS and improve patient experience and outcomes whilst providing more support for staff. But these changes require funding, and one of the prevailing narratives is that there is little money to spare in the existing health budget.

However, there is one area where the government can make simple, efficient and fast reforms, which will free up significant sums without impacting frontline services or staff – clinical negligence.

It is not a headline topic, but it is one that involves large amounts of money – £3.1 billion in the last financial year alone, according to NHS Resolution. That is more than the entire budget for the Cabinet Office (£1.9 billion), the winter fuel allowance (£1.25 billion), and government farming subsidies (£2.5 billion).

Concerningly, this figure is not an aberration, but part of an ongoing trend of ever-rising clinical negligence costs. The total has doubled in just 10 years, and the figure is set to reach well over £4 billion a year by 2030. The government has stated that this is unsustainable, and it is clear from having attended all three of the main party conferences in recent weeks to discuss this with MPs and peers that this is the prevailing view in parliament too.

Clinical negligence costs rose by 10% in the last financial year. One may assume that this is due to a decline in patient safety, but the data shows that this is simply not the case. Between 2023/24 and 2024/25, the number of incidents resulting in payment increased by less than 3%. This is not the driving force. Other factors are at play. So, what are they? The answer, at least in part, is the rising legal costs involved. During this time period, claimant legal costs paid by the NHS to claimant lawyers increased by almost 14%. Approximately £1 in every £5 the NHS pays goes not to claimants, but to their lawyers. Overall, when you consider payments to claimant lawyers and the NHS’s own defence costs, legal fees came to over £800 million a year.

The spread in the proportion of legal costs is even more staggering. NHS Resolution has found that for lower value claims (those where claimants get up to £25,000), on average legal fees for claimant lawyers were over £27,000 in 2024/25, up from over £26,000 in 2023/24.

Fixed recoverable costs (FRC) has long been advocated by the Medical Defence Union (MDU) as a solution. In such a system, there would be a set amount of legal costs that can be claimed back from the losing party by the winning party. This would stop these farcical statistics relating to lower value claims. Based on the government’s own forecasts, it would save nearly £500 million over a 10-year period if introduced for claims valued up to £25,000. If this threshold were increased, even more would be saved.

Something must, and hopefully will, change. In the 10-Year Health Plan, it was announced that David Lock KC had been commissioned to provide advice to the government about how to address the rising legal costs in clinical negligence, ahead of a review by the department in the autumn.

At each of the party conferences, there was consensus that spending such vast sums on clinical negligence needs to be addressed, and soon. The political will is there. With the budget rapidly approaching, calls for funding in different areas will only become louder. Addressing the rising legal costs through implementing FRC is something that is efficient, quick, carries cross-party support, and would not involve cutting frontline services. Now is the time for the government to enact this change, to protect the NHS from an unsustainable financial burden, whilst ensuring patients and staff continue to benefit from a health service fit for the future.

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.

The post Frontline NHS services have no money to spare – here’s where to find it appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Speaking on the Labour conference fringe, Josh Newbury, the MP for Cannock Chase, pointed to animal health and engagement on related issues as areas the government and the farming community “can all agree on”. 

He framed action on animal health as a “shared agenda” that could deliver progress on national priorities including biosecurity, food security and economic growth.

Newbury, who serves as chair of the all-party parliamentary group (APPG) on UK food security, said: “The government’s got to grasp [animal health], and actually, I do think… if this is something that we can make positive progress on, that perhaps has stalled in recent years and hasn’t been given the attention it deserves, then I think farmers will start to see that the government has got its finger on the pulse of where the challenges are coming and where we need to go to and that will be very welcome at the moment.”

The comments were delivered to a wide-ranging fringe session, entitled “Injecting confidence: how animal medicines boost biosecurity and UK growth”.

Newbury’s fellow panellists, Dawn Howard and Richard Griffiths, likewise highlighted the role of animal health in underpinning UK food security, national resilience, biosecurity and sustainable economic growth.

Howard, CEO of the National Office of Animal Health (NOAH), emphasised the importance of vaccination and preventative measures in animal health.

She said: “Prevention is always better than cure, and we’ve heard a lot from the current government about growth, the importance of growth in the context of farming, we need to have animals who are well looked after… and access to vets and medicines is a really key part of that.”

She added: “If you don’t have healthy animals, then those farming businesses are not going to be able to survive, and they won’t be there to continue to produce our food going forward.”

Howard went on to refer to feedback delivered to NOAH, the trade association for the UK animal health industry, by its members. The UK’s veterinary medicines regulator has been criticised as “under-resourced”, she said, leading to serious delays in approving new products.

She also pointed to the challenges faced by the veterinary medicines industry in international trade and the need for a comprehensive UK-EU agreement.

Howard commented: “For NOAH and its members, the UK-EU, SPS [Sanitary and Phytosanitary] discussions are very, very welcome, but unfortunately, they do not include veterinary medicines. 

“So as the veterinary medicines industry, we fall in a slightly strange place. In many parts of policy, there may be something which has been agreed for human [pharmaceuticals]. And people assume that includes veterinary medicines, or it’s something which may be dealt with at a farming level…but that’s not the case. 

“So what we’re calling for is, as part of the discussions which are taking place around the UK-EU SPS agreement, that there is a separate agreement for veterinary medicines…

“We very much welcome what government has been doing, with both ministers and the Veterinary Medicine Directorate [VMD], working together to come up with some measures to tackle supply problems in Northern Ireland post-January 2026, but it feels like there needs to be a longer term solution, and that longer term solution could be delivered through having a UK-EU veterinary medicines agreement.”

The Windsor framework’s grace period for veterinary medicines ends on 31 December 2025, meaning that from 1 January 2026, EU veterinary rules will apply in Northern Ireland.

Newbury, who is a member of the environment, food and rural affairs select committee, responded that the cross-party group needs to “drill into” these points when scrutinising ministers and holding the government to account. 

Richard Griffiths, the chief executive of the British Poultry Council (BPC), underlined the importance of animal health and medicines in the poultry industry.

He stated that the UK produces around 20 million chickens a week, which he referred to a “UK success story” – one that in many senses rests on animal health and medicines.

Griffiths said: “Whether you are interested in hunger and food poverty or you’re interested in supply chains, you’re interested in industrial strategy, in health strategy, in welfare strategy – or any of the other numerous strategies that the government is trying to put forward at the moment, and trying to pursue, food is integral to it all, and it can rest sometimes on one or two very specific and specialist areas, like animal health.”

Speaking after the event, Newbury commented: “It was clear from the varied discussion this afternoon that animal health cuts across so many of Labour’s priorities, whether that’s tackling climate change, keeping shelves stocked with affordable food and driving sustainable economic growth.

“This is exactly the kind of conversation we should be having at Labour conference, getting into the detail of how science and innovation can lead to benefits that the public can see and feel.

“Today’s panel showed that innovation in animal health isn’t a niche issue; it’s fundamental to rebuilding trust with rural communities, to food security, and to ensuring the UK produces affordable, sustainable food for generations to come.”

Dawn Howard said: “As we discussed on the panel, our work is about more than just animal health – it’s about public health, food security, and economic resilience. The conversation underlined how prevention-first approaches like vaccination and diagnostics reduce disease, emissions, and costs. 

“For me, the takeaway is clear: healthy animals mean a healthier society, and that’s the vision NOAH and our members are working towards every day.”

Richard Griffiths said: “The debate made clear that good animal health isn’t an abstract principle – it’s something that shows up every day in the price and availability of food. From biosecurity to timely access to medicines, these are the foundations of consumer trust and high welfare standards. 

“The panel was a valuable chance to show how sectors like poultry are putting that into practice.”

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.

The post Animal health ‘fundamental’ to rebuilding trust with rural communities, says Labour MP appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

As the dust begins to settle, we can now examine the proposed measures in-depth and ask the key question: could it do more to support our NHS?

The 10-Year Health Plan is underpinned by three core objectives, namely moving from analogue to digital, from hospital to communities and from sickness to prevention. Steps to achieve these include plans to increase the use of AI for both patients and clinicians, a greater emphasis on neighbourhood health contracts, and retail strategies to prevent obesity.

The proposals are bold and the MDU largely welcomes many of the initiatives the government has put forward. We fully support the focus on prevention and the steps being taken to reduce pressures on emergency care. However, uncertainty remains about how the plan will be implemented.  There is no additional funding to deliver the plan; funds will instead be secured via reforms such as changing to the Carr-Hill formula for GP funding to redirect funds towards more economically deprived areas.

The MDU has long argued that one of the best ways that the government could free up additional capital to spend on frontline services is by reforming clinical negligence regulation.

Two clear examples of this are the implementation of a system of fixed recoverable costs (FRC) for cases valued up to £25,000. This would limit how much claimant lawyers can claim from the NHS and would bring the system in line with that used in other personal injury cases. The government’s own forecast is that this would save £454 million over a 10-year period – a significant boost towards the finances available for the implementation of the Plan.

Additionally, the government could look to repeal section 2(4) of the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948 – legislation that pre-dates the NHS and demands that courts disregard its existence when awarding compensation. This law effectively means that the NHS pays double in many cases – once for the assumption that the patient will use private care, and again to actually treat the patient.

With reform at the heart of the government’s proposals, now is the time to grasp the nettle of clinical negligence.

There are also questions left unanswered in the Plan about investing in the wellbeing of people at the heart of the NHS. Repeated surveys conducted by the MDU and our specialist dental division, the DDU, show that many doctors and dentists are struggling to provide optimal care, are suffering from excessive stress in the workplace, or are unable to access basic rest and catering facilities during their shifts.  Healthcare professionals are central to delivering the government’s proposals and more must be done to address the challenges they face.

One of the strongest signals the government could send to doctors and dentists that they are on their side is to address the increasingly outdated way we regulate medical and dental professionals. This requires reform of both the General Medical Council (GMC) and the General Dental Council (GDC) to ensure a fairer, timely and more proportionate system of regulation for those working on the frontline.

Additionally, the government should look to improve access to basic facilities for healthcare staff when they are working out of hours. It is not right that so many of these staff are unable to access hot food during their shift, nor that they have the opportunity for a few moments of respite but have nowhere to go. This needs to change.

The 10-Year Plan contains many positive proposals and should be welcomed. Yet more can, and should, be done to create an NHS that delivers for patients and for the healthcare professionals at its heart. After all, the Plan cannot succeed without them.

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.

The post Could the 10 Year Health Plan do more to support our NHS? appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Whilst it might sound technical, it will undoubtedly be of huge importance. The spending review will set out how much each department has to spend per year through to 2029 – effectively confirming the feasibility of many policies and proposals. The announcement will lay the groundwork for the conditions under which the next general election takes place, and will have a real impact on the public services utilised by tens of millions of people across the UK each year.

In the months leading up to it, one narrative has been clear above all others – money is in short supply. In this context, looking at reforms within departments to free up funds for investment is key. One of the major opportunities to do so is in relation to clinical negligence.

Clinical negligence may not be the most eye-catching of issues, but the sums are significant. In 2023/24, the NHS in England spent over £2.8 billion on it. For perspective, this is more than was spent subsidies to farmers (£2.4 billion), on the combined cost of food and cleaning in hospitals (£2.3 billion) and the winter fuel payment (£2 billion). We spent more on it than on GPs in the Midlands, who serve approximately 10 million people. In the near future, the cost is also forecast to rise significantly – potentially to over £4 billion per annum by the end of the decade.

Spending such vast sums on this issue is a relatively new phenomenon. Less than 20 years ago, we were spending only £600 million a year, the equivalent of just over £1 billion today. This is still a sizeable amount, but nearly £2 billion less than what we actually spend now. Which raises the question – why?

The Department of Health and Social Care is clear that they do not believe it to be due to a fall in standards of clinical care. The MDU agrees. In 2021, the government stated in evidence to the health and social care select committee that “we do not believe any measurable decline in safety is driving the long-term rise in the cost of clinical negligence claims”. So, given we can rule out the most obvious potential cause, what is behind this increase?

One potential explanation lies in the rising costs being incurred towards claimant legal fees. In 2006/07, claimant legal fees amounted to approximately £98 million (the equivalent of around £165 million in today’s money). In 2023/24, this figure stood at over £545 million. For lower value claims, in which the claimant is awarded up to £25,000, the average cost of legal fees in 2023/24 stood at over £96 million. According to NHS Resolution, this meant that for claims valued at up to £25,000, the average legal fees now stood at £26,095 – more than the amount actually awarded to claimants. It is an area that the public accounts committee and the government have both stated needs to be examined.

In recent years it felt like action was finally imminent. Alas, this proved to be a false hope. Following a consultation in 2022, it was announced that the government would implement a system of fixed recoverable costs (FRC) for lower valued claims. This would effectively enforce a set amount of legal costs that can be claimed back from the losing party by the winning party in litigation. It is an established practice in most personal injury claims. However, despite the announcement being made in 2023, no progress has been made since, despite these changes potentially resulting in a saving of around £454 million over a 10-year period.

This is only one part of a wider package of potential reforms that the MDU has long called for. We also, for example, support the repeal of section 2(4) of the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948. This legislation, enacted before the NHS came into existence, forces courts to disregard NHS services when awarding compensation for clinical negligence and instead base funding on the basis of private healthcare. This means that if the claimant then uses the NHS for restorative work, the NHS is effectively paying double. It is clear that change is needed.

These changes are just two of the potential ways to reform the current system. Both of them will result in savings and help to offset the rapidly increase we are currently seeing on clinical negligence costs.

Those who are harmed as a result of clinical negligence should receive appropriate compensation, but reforms are needed to help address what is rapidly growing fiscal problem for the Exchequer.

For more information about this issue, please visit the MDU website at: Our impact – The MDU.

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.

The post The government needs money — clinical negligence reform is a solution appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

FRC is a system whereby there would be a set amount of legal costs that can be claimed back from the losing party by the winning party in litigation. It is an established practice in most personal injury claims. However, such a system is not currently in place in relation to clinical negligence claims. 

In January 2022, the Department of Health and Social Care launched a consultation on whether to implement such a scheme for claims up to £25,000. Nearly two years later, in October 2023, the last government issued its response, confirming that the system should be implemented from April 2024. 

This did not happen. Instead, the Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) determined in March 2024 that the implementation of the proposed FRC system would need to be delayed until October due to ‘outstanding issues’. 

Since March, a lot has changed. There is a new government, a new Health Secretary and more money for the NHS. However, there is no new FRC system in place, despite the second self-imposed deadline having passed.

In fact, the issue was not even discussed by the CPRC during their meeting on 4th October, despite this being the month of the new deadline. Progress has clearly stalled. Or, more concerningly, is the appetite for such a reform waning? 

In the weeks since, it was initially suggested that the implementation had been pushed back to April 2025. Others, however, have now suggested that achieving a FRC scheme by this date would be impossible, particularly given the CPRC is currently not actively considering the issue.

Delay on top of delay. Feeding an increasingly unsustainable clinical negligence bill for the taxpayer. Every month without it in place is a burden on the NHS. The last government stated that its implementation would see a saving of approximately £454 million over a ten-year period.

When we are talking about spending the NHS budget more efficiently, how can government ignore this issue? It must be a priority.

In our written evidence submission to the Public Accounts Committee inquiry into NHS Financial Sustainability, the MDU also highlighted the cost incurred in individual member cases due to the lack of an FRC. In one such case, the claimant received £1,000 while legal costs were £30,000. In another case, the claimant received £23,000 whilst their legal costs were £140,000. 

A FRC scheme would lower costs, allowing the saved money to be reinvested into frontline services. It would bring clinical negligence claims in line with the system used in other claims. And it would help to stem a spiralling and expensive clinical negligence regime, which now stands at £2.9 billion a year and rising according to NHS Resolution.

Indeed, the MDU wants that the government should go further and commit to extend an FRC regime to claims valued up to £250,000, as outlined in our recent Agenda for Change policy paper.

Clarity is needed. Action is needed. That’s what the MDU is campaigning for. 

For more information, you can read our recent Agenda for Change policy paper here: 

https://www.themdu.com/press-centre/our-impact/our-impact-archive/an-agenda-for-change-the-mdus-parliamentary-priorities

The post The need for a FRC scheme in clinical negligence cases appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Now, as the Labour Party gathers for its first party conference in government in fourteen years, the MDU is publishing its government priorities. These priorities look to address three major topics that the government may wish to start considering when parliament resumes in October, including:

1. Reform of healthcare professional regulation
2. Action on clinical negligence costs
3. Supporting the health and wellbeing of the workforce

Reform of healthcare professional regulation

No one would design the current system of healthcare professional regulation, which is outdated and in need of reform. That is why doctors and dentists have been promised change for years. In 2022, a blueprint was published to do just this, with reform promised for doctors within the year. As we approach 2025, they are still regulated using the old system with no change in sight. Dentists have not even been given a commitment on when their regulator will be reformed.

Undergoing a General Medical Council (GMC) or General Dental Council (GDC) investigation is one of the most stressful experiences of a clinician’s professional life. The stress can have a devastating impact. Part of the reason is fitness to practice procedures, which are governed by outdated legislation. An investigation takes a significant amount of time too. A GMC investigation takes an average of 102 weeks or nearly two years, and a GDC investigation over 140 weeks or over two and a half years. A reset is clearly needed.

The government can change this. We are calling for the government to: 

• Bring forward a Section 60 Order to enable doctors to get the reformed, fairer, more timely and proportionate model of regulation that they have long been promised. 
• Do the same for dental professional regulation. 

Action on clinical negligence

Patients harmed as a result of negligence must receive appropriate compensation. However, the law surrounding clinical negligence in the UK has failed to keep with the times and is now woefully out of date. Legislation enacted before the NHS was founded is still in force and means money is taken from frontline healthcare services, benefiting neither staff or patients. 

NHS Resolution’s latest figures show that over £2.8 billion has been paid out in compensation and associated legal costs. Lord Darzi’s report highlighted that the NHS spends more on this than on GP services in the Midlands.

The status quo cannot carry on. We are calling on the government to: 

• Repeal Section 2(4) of the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948, which will allow courts to factor in the existence of the NHS when determining compensation. 
• Tackle disproportionate legal costs by ensuring fixed recoverable costs in clinical negligence claims up to £25,000 is promptly enacted. This should swiftly be followed by a commitment to extend that regime to claims valued up to £250,000.

Supporting the health and wellbeing of the workforce

At some point we will all be treated by a doctor. We want those doctors to feel well rested and able to deliver optimal care. At present, however, this is not always the case. According to a recent survey conducted by the MDU of 331 doctors, only 7% felt able to deliver optimal patient care all of the time. 55% said they felt they were only able to deliver optimal care to patients’ half of the time or less. This is not a one off. A separate survey conducted by the MDU of over 530 doctors found that over a third felt sleep deprived on at least a weekly basis.

The government must tackle this situation. Small changes can make a big difference. Improving workplace facilities, such as access to hot food out of hours and staff rooms, were amongst the top issues that MDU members said they want parliament to prioritise. This is not an impossible barrier to overcome.

We call on the government to:

• Direct NHS employers to ensure that staff catering, and rest facilities are provided, including for those working out of hours. 
• Direct NHS employers to establish key performance indicators for the NHS estate, to ensure that changes are brought in without delay and that initial standards are maintained or improved upon going forward. 
• To commit, alongside the above, to continue funding for programmes and services that ensure support for doctors when they feel at risk of, or experience burnout – such as NHS Practitioner Health.

The post An agenda for change: the MDU’s parliamentary priorities appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

With the difficulties being experienced in access to NHS dental treatment in particular, it’s encouraging to see that dentistry has been a key election issue. We can expect a raft of policy proposals in the months ahead as part of Labour’s dental rescue plan including a pledge to deliver 700,000 more NHS dental appointments.

We welcome this focus on improving NHS dentistry as 80% of dental professionals responding to our survey of members said they feel negative about the future of the NHS.  Every day, we hear from members that they desperately want to see things improve. Not being able to deliver the best care for their patients is putting them under morale distress.

96% of respondents to our survey said they want political parties to include plans in their manifestos to support the health and wellbeing of the workforce.

One dental professional commented: “There aren’t enough hours in the day. We are trying to give the best patient care we can, but we have so many patients, it is difficult and stressful.”

Only 17% of respondents said they always felt able to deliver optimal patient care. The impact of this was raised concerns about receiving a complaint or claim, poorer mental health and lower team morale.

Notably, 41% of respondents said they are planning to reduce their hours because of these pressures and 31% are planning to leave practice or retire.

Morale among dental professionals is clearly being affected by the current situation and it is no wonder the profession is looking for politicians to offer them more support with their own health and wellbeing needs.

Earlier this year, NHS England extended a programme whereby all clinicians would access mental health support from the NHS Practitioner Health programme, having earlier said secondary care clinicians would no longer be able to access the service. This was a welcome reversal and we call on the new government to commit to this support for the long term.

The government can also provide a morale boost on day one by reforming the legislation which underpins the work of the General Dental Council (GDC). This was the second most important dento-legal issue our members wanted the next government to focus on, after tackling access to NHS treatment.

Dental professionals have long been promised root-and-branch reform of how they are regulated. It’s time government finally delivers legislation that achieves that fairer, more proportionate, more timely method of regulating dental professionals.

Our political leaders need to find a way to improve access to dentistry and this means recruiting and retaining more dental professionals, but there are no quick solutions. It’s important the proposals brought forward are realistic and don’t lead to unforeseen consequences. After all, it is hardworking dental professionals who will be on the frontline of meeting people’s raised expectations of dental care.

Our members care for patients, but they also need healthcare leaders and the government to care for them.

See John Makin, head of the MDU’s sister company, the DDU, discussing the pressures on dental professionals in an interview on the Dentistry website: https://dentistry.co.uk/2024/07/03/general-election-2024-john-makin-calls-for-measured-solutions-in-dentistry/

The post No quick fixes for new government when it comes to NHS appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Throughout its existence, blockchain has evolved from its roots as a ledger technology devised for cryptocurrencies. With features such as decentralisation, transparency, and encryption, blockchain shows clear applications for a multitude of purposes. These features are of particular interest in situations where speed and efficiency in administrative work are crucial, to which, Governments are no stranger.

In this article, we explore the potential applications of blockchain in public sector operations. We will uncover how blockchain can revolutionise different processes, and pave the way for a more secure future in government.

A message from … the London Blockchain Conference – With blockchain specialists in attendance, this year’s London Blockchain Conference is not to be missed. Taking place in ExCel London on 21-23 May, come sharpen your blockchain knowledge with educational seminars, and learn about the possible future of a blockchain-empowered government. Tickets are available, here.

Why Blockchain?

As a computational model, blockchain is a highly secure ledger system that records transactions via thousands, if not millions, of connected computers. The transactions are secured via cryptographic methods and distributed over a network of clients to ensure even control.

When used in the public sector, blockchain can provide total transparency over financial transactions, contract exchanges, and other sensitive information. This efficient approach allows for high productivity gains and cost savings thanks to reduced paperwork, management, and verification requirements.

For every transaction or piece of data that is processed in blockchain, a cryptographic process takes place to ensure the integrity of the information is protected from tampering.

How Can Blockchain Be Used in Government?

Blockchain’s utilisation in public sector falls into several categories:

Voting Verification

Current voting systems rely on decade-old methods to ensure the authenticity of a vote during elections. Transitioning toward a blockchain-based voting system can allow governments to independently prove the authenticity of a given vote by processing it through the blockchain. Each vote can be verified, confirmed, and tallied via the numerous checks undergone in each swarm, reducing the risk of election fraud.

Healthcare

In the UK, blockchain is already being utilised to some degree by the NHS through its partnership with Patient’s Know Best. This collaboration currently allows diabetic patients to privately share data from health monitoring tools with healthcare professionals.

Scaling such practices could allow for entire health records to be stored, accessed, and shared on blockchain-based systems between hospitals and patients.

Finance

Given its roots in cryptocurrencies, the financial applications for blockchain with public finance management are apparent. Such a database can be used to track and account for government budgets, spending, and tax records, while providing total transparency to the public about where money is being spent, how, and what for.

Identity Management

With fraud, especially digital fraud, continuing to be a prominent crime across the globe, there is a high demand for a secure method of verifying the identity of individuals.

Alongside an increase in the use of biometric identity verification systems in banking and smartphones, blockchain could be used to create authentic digital identities to be used in various places.

Such identities can be used to support voting systems, prove online identities, and fight back against identity theft and fraud, thanks to a highly secure and verified database of identity information.

Administration and Auditing

Due to its transparent nature, blockchain technology would be especially useful in government settings when it comes to auditing. Transactions, activities, and records can all be recalled and verified with timestamps relating to each occurrence, the source of each one, and details of any recipients. This results in further administration reductions, and a subsequently more streamlined auditing process.

Learn More About Governmental Blockchain Applications

Taking place at ExCel London on 21-23 May, the London Blockchain Conference will provide educational seminars about the future of blockchain technology and its applications in both public and private sectors.

Featuring some of the most successful thinkers in the blockchain field, attendees will leave feeling empowered to innovate via the blockchain after picking up the skills, tools, and techniques needed to embrace the digital future.

The London Blockchain Conference takes place on 21-23 May at ExCel London

The post Why governments should care about blockchain appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Most Private Members’ Bills fail. In the parliamentary session 2021-22, only 13 out of a total of 261 ever made it into legislation. But in the area of employment rights, just recently Private Members’ Bills have proven a remarkably effective means to push progressive legislation forward.

From the 6th April, workers in England, Scotland and Wales will have two new important rights – a right to request flexible working from day one, and a right to a week’s unpaid carer’s leave every year – thanks to Private Members’ Bills respectively from Yasmin Qureshi, Labour MP for Bolton South East, and Wendy Chamberlain, Liberal Democrat MP for North East Fife. Each were encouraged and supported by expert organisations and campaigning charities like Carers UK, Timewise and the Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development.

These new rights are very important, if modest, developments towards opening up more good quality job opportunities to everyone, particularly women and people with caring responsibilities, health conditions and disabilities, and workers in their 50s and 60s. And in a country beset by persistently high rates of economic inactivity, even modest positive steps towards a more inclusive labour market that draws on the widest possible pool of talent and skills, can only be welcomed.

The Day One Right to Request Flex
This new right brings forward the right for a new employee to make a request for flexible working arrangements from six months of employment to the first day, alongside some other changes in the process.

Flexible working is an increasingly high priority for people of all ages, as we at Phoenix Insights have found from our own research into workers in their 50s and 60s in particular.

Many employers have already responded to this demand and started to take flexible working seriously. Flexible working experts Timewise have successfully worked with businesses from all sectors, from manufacturing to media, to make the practical and attitudinal changes needed to embrace flexible working throughout their organisations. The hope is that this new right begins to normalise conversations between workers and employers about flexible working arrangements right at the start of the working relationship.

The Right to Unpaid Carer’s Leave

This legislation introduces a new right to a week’s worth of unpaid leave to care for someone who has long-term care needs. At any one time, there is estimated to be at least five million unpaid carers in the UK, and research from Carers UK estimates value of unpaid care to the economy in England and Wales at £162 billion, greater than the entire budget for the NHS in England.

But we also know that around 600 people are forced to give up work every day to care for others, and carer’s leave can be a lifeline to enable carers, who are predominantly women, to keep their jobs and juggle the responsibilities of work and care.

Forward thinking employers thankfully already do more than the bare minimum being introduced by these new laws. But estimates suggest that millions of workers will be newly able to take up what the laws will now provide. I hope this leads to some of our currently underemployed workforce – those who would choose to work more hours if they had more flexibility, and those who need that flexibility to be able to work at all – returning to work that is good for them, and good for our economy.

Because this is a critical issue for the UK labour market at the moment, which continues to struggle with a working-age employment rate still well below pre-Covid levels, making us the only G7 nation to have failed to recover since the pandemic.

The post Flexible working and unpaid leave key to getting underemployed back to work appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

As an industry worth £14 billion a year (and counting), this meticulous regulation serves several vital functions, not least to ensure complete transparency, fairness to consumers, and the combating of illegal activities, but much more, too. And with gambling more widely accessible and even more popular than ever, implementing a safe space to enjoy betting has never been more important

However, in order to understand the regulations surrounding sports betting, we must first delve into the gambling regulatory system as a whole, beginning with the all-important legislation covering gambling in the country.

Just over 6 million of us here in the United Kingdom enjoy betting in at least one form. And central to UK betting regulations is the Gambling Act 2005. This Act, which applies to England, Wales and Scotland, does not merely provide a legal structure; it emphasises the country’s commitment to balancing the thrill of gambling with stringent oversight. Initially, the legislation operated under a point-of-supply framework, aka those brick-and-mortar casinos that operated in Great Britain.

However, with the emergence of the ever-evolving digital landscape and, thus, the need for a more comprehensive approach, the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Act 2014 ushered in a shift to a point-of-consumption regime. This change mandated online gambling operators, irrespective of their geographical location, to secure a license from the UK Gambling Commission if they intended to cater to British patrons.

The UK Gambling Commission is the authoritative body entrusted with the mammoth task of overseeing the gambling landscape throughout England, Wales and Scotland. The Commission serves as the linchpin, issuing licenses, meticulously monitoring compliance, and overseeing the industry to ensure operators adhere to a series of stringent standards and protocols.

The Gambling Commission also shoulders the overarching responsibility with local authorities who are responsible for granting premises licenses and ensuring everyone – from bustling casinos in the big cities to high street betting stores – operates within the well-defined legal parameters.

Sports betting operates under a robust regulatory umbrella designed to preserve the sanctity of sporting events, protect consumers, and, ultimately, maintain the industry’s integrity.

Sports betting operators in the UK are faced with a rigorous licensing regime controlled by the commission. This licensing mandate serves as a bulwark against unsavoury, nefarious, or outright illegal practices, meaning operators have to navigate their way through processes that include, but certainly aren’t limited to: demonstrating financial solvency; showcasing their complete commitment to responsible gambling practices and protocols; upholding fairness and transparency to thwart match-fixing, insider betting; and other activities that threaten the very spirit of sportsmanship.

To help maintain the “fun” emphasis of sports betting, regulations are in place to enforce affordability checks by operators in an effort to ensure that players do not gamble beyond their means. This includes scrutinising the income and spending of new users, whether online or in person. Players are empowered to set deposit limits, with operators restricted from incessantly prompting increases. Moreover, rigorous age verification processes are set in place to ensure only adults can gamble.

When it comes to advertising, a whistle-to-whistle ban is in place throughout England, Scotland and Wales which has led to a stop in promotions before and during live sports events. In 2022, it was revealed by The Committee for Advertising Practice that footballers, celebrities and social media influencers would be banned from gambling adverts under new rules.

Furthermore, technical controls are enhanced with the introduction of maximum stake limits for specific online sports betting, helping to curb potential rapid losses. Gambling platforms must ensure a safe online community with advanced technical features to prevent fraud and potential data breaches.

If sports betting shops, online or otherwise, fail in any part of this strict criteria, the Gambling Commission wields enforcement powers which can lead to intense investigations and sanctions for any form of regulatory infringement.

When it comes to licensing and regulation, the Commission has the legal power to refuse to grant a licence if they have concerns about the operator’s suitability or compliance with the Gambling Act 2005. The Commission can also attach conditions to betting shop licences to address specific concerns or risks. For example, they might require a shop to limit the number of gaming machines it can have. The authority even has the power to carry out unannounced inspections of betting shops to check that they are complying with their licence conditions and the Gambling Act.

When it comes to enforcement, the Gambling Commission can fine betting shops for breaches of the Act or their licence conditions. The fines can be very large, running into millions of pounds in some cases. One of the most recent fines involved The Entain Group, which received a £17 million penalty in August 2022 for social responsibility and anti-money laundering failures at its online and land-based businesses.

The Commission can go even further if it deems an offence to be serious enough. In certain circumstances, it can suspend or even completely cancel the registration of a betting establishment if it is not being operated safely and responsibly.

And, when it comes to the most serious offences, it can seek to prosecute individuals for offences under the Gambling Act.

The post How the UK regulates sports betting appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

In recent months, much of the political conversation around the NHS has centred on the industrial action taking place. However, there is no shortage of other issues on the Secretary of State’s desk which are of importance to the medical profession. 

If Steve Barclay wants to show doctors he is committed to delivery, there are two issues he must take action on in the final year of this parliament. 

Reform of the General Medical Council (GMC)

Doctors deserve a reformed regulator.  

Much of the legislation underpinning the work of the GMC is outdated and no longer fit for purpose. Despite a consultation in 2021 promising root-and-branch reform of the regulator, with draft legislation promised in early 2022 – there has been very little, if any, legislative movement. 

Healthcare professional regulatory reform needs to be higher up the parliamentary agenda. The NHS Long Term Workforce Plan has rightly focussed attention on workforce retention. However, you cannot have a conversation about improving workforce retention in the NHS if the regulatory system that doctors are subjected to is as outdated as the one currently in place. This does nothing for morale, which the GMC’s own research indicates is extremely low with many doctors considering leaving the profession. It also does nothing for inspiring confidence amongst medics that if they do find themselves before the GMC – they will be dealt with in the most timely, fair and proportionate way possible.  

If the government is looking for a way to show doctors that they are on their side, then giving them a reformed regulator before the next election is a good place to start. It’s time the legislation to reform the GMC and its regulation of doctors is put before parliament. 

Tackle the rising cost of clinical negligence

Doctors want to be working in an NHS that is firing on all cylinders – with every penny possible spent on frontline patient care. However, with billions of pounds every year leaving the system in clinical negligence costs, there’s a real problem.

Between financial years 2006 to 2007 and 2022 to 2023, the annual expenditure on clinical negligence claims in the NHS more than quadrupled from £0.6 billion to £2.6 billion. Legal costs are a notable proportion of this rise. So it’s a good first step that the government has announced plans to cap legal costs in lower value clinical negligence claims – those up to £25,000. However, more ambitious reform is urgently needed. 

Our Fair Compensation campaign is putting forward ambitious but deliverable reforms, such as the repeal of a 1948 law which still applies, meaning personal injury defendants must disregard NHS care when paying compensation. This means public bodies like NHS Resolution have to fund private care, so billions of pounds from NHS funds go out of the system, irrespective of whether the NHS ultimately ends up providing the care – as a free at the point of use service.

We need a plan from government for legal reform, to finally address the cost burden clinical negligence places on the NHS. A detailed consultation on proposals has long been promised by the Department of Health and Social Care. Simply getting that consultation published in the next few months would be a positive move and reassure doctors that ministers appreciate their concerns about the sheer scale of this cost.  

_

We look forward discussing these issues with MPs, stakeholders and opinion formers in the coming days during the party conference season.

It is time for action.

The post The ‘to-do’ list: how the government can deliver for doctors before the next election appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

New polling from Phoenix Insights, Phoenix Group’s longevity think tank, among 2,500 over 45 workers shows wide gaps in ‘retirement readiness’ across different regions in the UK. Over 45s in Greater London and the South East are saving around 40% more towards their retirement than those in the Midlands and the North of England.

In the North of England, the average amount saved in a pension is less than £100k per person, falling significantly short of the estimated £248k needed for a ‘moderate’ standard of living in retirement*. Scotland and Wales have slightly better saving levels, although average amounts are still sitting around the UK-wide average of £112k, less than half of the target fund needed.

Top five UK regions with least savings among over 45 workers

There are many factors that affect people’s ability to save in the different regions. These include, differences in living costs, wealth deprivation, socio-demographics, household incomes, financial literacy, job opportunities, access to financial advice, and the list goes on. With all these elements feeding in, we can’t afford to take a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to solving the imbalances. Efforts to combat under-saving must reflect the needs of all parts of the UK.

Supporting good work

Top of the government’s priority to address the savings gap should be to support people to stay in good quality work through their 50s and 60s. This is particularly important given the state pension age is set to increase over the coming decades, with the decision about bringing forward future increases  due shortly after the next general election. Alongside the many benefits of staying in good work, are the financial boosts of continuing to receive an income from an employer and maintaining contributions towards a pension.

Our polling shows half (51%) of people expect to drop out of work before reaching state pension age with physical health, mental health, and age discrimination common barriers to remaining in work. This highlights the need to radically change the way we think about work, making it more sustainable and accessible, and with better opportunities to upskill and change careers.

Supporting savings

Coupled with support for good work should be policies that encourage greater levels of savings and engagement with retirement planning. The introduction of automatic enrolment in 2012 has resulted in a huge uptick in pension participation across the UK, but saving at the minimum contribution level is unlikely to result in a decent retirement income, and many people are still excluded due to the age or earnings threshold. Improving the coverage and effectiveness of auto-enrolment will help more people to increase their savings levels and better their retirement income prospects.

There is also a sizable proportion of the population who are approaching retirement and haven’t benefitted from auto-enrolment or the generous final salary pensions of the generations preceding them. For those without additional financial resources to draw upon, it is important there is an adequate safety net through the benefits system to protect the most vulnerable, and this group have access to good financial advice and guidance.

Of the people we surveyed, some will have more than 20 years to plug the savings gap – and the sooner they address this the easier it will be. But those closer to retirement and facing a shortfall in their savings will need to plan their future income requirements carefully.

Responding to the possibility of longer lives

On average, people across the UK are living longer than the generations before them and could spend over a third of their lives in retirement. People have a responsibility to prepare for their futures but they must be supported by the government and employers to enable more sustainable working lives for all, build financial engagement, and broaden the effectiveness of auto-enrolment.

To enjoy fulfilling longer lives, Phoenix Group recognises that we all need to think differently about our futures, and the futures of those we care about. Our pensions heatmap is part of Phoenix Group’s campaign to encourage people to start talking about how we live, work, and save for our longer lives.

The post Uncovering the regional ‘retirement readiness’ gaps in the UK appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

On 5^th July this year, it will be 75 years since the NHS came into being. During that time the NHS has been at the forefront of medical advances, performing many world firsts. These include the first CT scan in 1971, the first test tube baby born in 1978 and more recently, NHS hospitals played a key role in providing evidence of the use of  dexamethasone to effectively treat patients with Covid-19, helping save an estimated one million lives worldwide.

The NHS is needed more than ever before but it and its staff are under increased pressure. Despite this, doctors and nurses continue to top the charts of the most trusted professionals. 

Here we look back at some landmark medico-legal cases, many of which still shape NHS care and treatment today as well as examining key challenges facing this hard-pressed institution:

1957 – The Bolam test is established

John Henry Bolam suffered severe injuries during a course of electro-convulsive therapy (ECT). He sued and the landmark legal judgement that bears his name continues to influence the behaviour of today’s healthcare professionals when judging whether there has been a breach in their duty of care in the treatment of their patients (negligence).

The Bolam test established that a professional is required to exercise the ordinary skill of a competent practitioner in their field. A health professional will be judged to have come up to the required standard of clinical care if a responsible body of medical opinion, even a minority one, would find their actions acceptable.

1988 – MDU pays out its first claim of over £1 million 

The MDU becomes the first medical defence organisation to pay compensation of over £1 million. This settlement was paid to a man who suffered severe brain damage following an operation to remove a cyst on the brain. Today claims for compensation involving patients treated by the NHS regularly exceed £20 million and can even reach £30 million. 

2015 – Montgomery judgment establishes informed consent

This case concerned a woman who had given birth to a baby with cerebral palsy as a result of shoulder dystocia. The patient, who had diabetes, expressed concerns about the size of the baby but she was not warned about the risks of a vaginal delivery or offered a caesarean section. While her claim was initially unsuccessful in the Scottish Court of Session, the patient eventually took the case to the Supreme Court which ruled that a doctor has a duty to take reasonable care to ensure the patient is aware of any material risks in proposed treatment and reasonable alternatives.  

Unlike the Bolam judgement, the Supreme Court approached this from the patient’s, rather than the doctor’s perspective. A risk would be ‘material’ if a reasonable person in the patient’s position would be likely to attach significance to it, or if the doctor is or should reasonably be aware that the particular patient would be likely to attach significance to it. It established the principle of informed consent in UK clinical negligence law. 

2022 – NHS claims liabilities pass £100 billion for first time

At the last estimate, the cost of meeting future claims liabilities for the NHS in England stood at a staggering £128 billion, a figure which has increased more than six-fold in the last decade. It was £17.5 billion in 2011.

This enormous financial liability for the NHS doesn’t exist in isolation. Every penny expected to be spent on claims means less money for patient care. This is not a sustainable situation and legal reform is desperately needed to rebalance the system.

2022 – Staffing shortfalls pose risk to patient safety

The Health and Social Care committee’s workforce, recruitment, training and retention in health and social care report highlighted the worrying risk posed to patient safety by staffing shortfalls. Without enough trained clinical staff, the NHS cannot address the current waiting list backlog or adapt to the increased demand on it expected as our population ages.

Study after study have demonstrated doctors and other healthcare professionals are suffering from burnout. This is not good for them or patients. The government must do more to support doctors’ wellbeing and implement its Long Term Workforce Plan without delay.

Read the MDU’s commentary on the newly-published Long Term Workforce Plan here. 

Now test your knowledge on Britain’s health service with MDU’S NHS 75th anniversary quiz

For more information and help with tackling negligence claims, check out MDU’s Opinion Former profile.

The post Happy Birthday NHS appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

One Briton every week flees our country to have a dignified death on their own terms and the number of Brits who are members of DIGNITAS has soared by more than 80% in the past decade. It is only going to rise further.

There is no fairness in this status quo. The average cost to die in Switzerland is over £10,000 and only the wealthy can end their lives this way. The UK Government knows people die in exile. In fact, they gave the gentle nod for this to go ahead during the Covid pandemic and through this hypocrisy, knowingly gives compassion and dignity abroad to the few, while leaving the many with no freedom of choice at all.

The inquiry must understand that dying abroad isn’t fair or easy, and it’s exacerbated by the fear and uncertainty about what will happen to friends and loved ones when they return. I was devastated to learn about the ordeal of Humanists UK celebrant Sue Lawford, who was arrested at 5 am, held for sixteen hours, investigated for six months and then released without charge, all for accompanying tetraplegic woman Sharon Johnston to DIGNITAS. Sharon filmed an entire BBC documentary about her wish to die – it was her death, her choice. Yet in the end, Sue was punished for her compassion.

We are desperately falling behind the rest of the world regarding legislation on assisted dying. The scale of pain and suffering that some people experience at the end of their lives can be hard to comprehend – but Parliament must address it. Every week that they fail to do so, at least 17 people in the UK die in pain, agony, and indignity.

Much opposition to assisted dying is religious. In fact, the tendency of a minority of religious believers to think that it is their values on matters of individual conscience that should rule over the private conscientious choices of others gives the greatest cause to fear that, in spite of overwhelming public support, assisted dying will not come soon enough.

The House of Commons Health and Social Care Committee which is running the assisted dying inquiry is considerably more religious than the public. Ten of the eleven committee members swore a Christian oath upon entering Parliament. Four committee members have voted against assisted dying in the past and at least three of the members of the Committee have also voted against abortion rights, a stark contrast to the 86% of the public who support women’s right to an abortion.

The moral calculation of those who think that their personal ethics on assisted dying should dictate the law of the land are hopelessly muddled. Continuing to deny a framework of assisted dying in our country does not stop assisted dying. It simply outsources assisted dying to other countries. It punishes only those too poor and vulnerable to travel. This is hypocrisy and sanctimony and helps no one, least of all those suffering as they exit this life through the torture chamber, sacrifices on the altar of the politicians in power who deny them the freedom of choice from a lofty position of power, but not the moral high ground.

For more information, check out Humanists UK’s Opinion Former profile

The post We must stop exiling British citizens to die abroad appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Investors and traders across the forex space are constantly looking for winning strategies to try and profit from market movements. Despite the push, there still are traders who ignore forex money management whether deliberately or due to a lack of awareness. If you want to find out how good your trading knowledge is, taking a trading quiz can help you take your skills to the next level.

What Is forex money management?

Forex money management is simply the process that investors and traders use to manage the financial resources in their trading accounts. The most fundamental principle of forex money management is that traders must take all measures possible to preserve their capital.

In line with veteran investor Warren Buffet’s thoughts, traders must take caution to “Never Lose Money”. However, this shouldn’t be taken to mean that they won’t lose trades. It means that losses must be within manageable parameters.

Putting a break to losing money in forex

Trading is a business whose goal is to make and not lose money. That notwithstanding, many traders including experienced forex investors have lost capital at one point or another. In fact, the disclaimer most investment organizations give is that you may lose all your money including the capital you put in. With the rising inflation and households’ budgets being squeezed, the last thing you would wish for is to lose money trading forex.

The question that traders must always contend with is how to finetune their strategies to minimize losses and maximize their gains. This is what foreign exchange money management is all about. There are rules that can help you stay on the straight and narrow.

Forex money management tips to follow

To help you enhance your forex trading success here are four money management rules. You are free to tailor them to suit your trading strategy.

Size Your Positions
Every position you enter in forex trading involves risking some of the resources in your trading account. Top traders and mentors usually advocate for 2% of your trading capital. This means if you have $10,000 in your account, you should risk only up to $200 per trade.

Proponents of the anti-martingale money management technique usually vary the sizes of their trades based on the most recent performance. For instance, in case of a gain, the trader doubles their subsequent position size. However, for a loss, the trader halves their next position size.

Put a Maximum Account Drawdown
In foreign exchange money management, a drawdown refers to the difference between the highest trading account value and the value of the account after a loss. If your account had $100,000 and you lost $2000, the loss equates to a 2% drawdown.

A larger drawdown may make it harder for you to come back after a loss. One of the best ways to set a drawdown is to do trading strategy backtesting. For instance, you can test up to 40 of your trades and get the average drawdown. If the average is at 6%, then you can apply that. This means any trade above 6% will close.

Assign a Risk Reward Ratio
As a rule of thumb, your winning trades must be twice as large as your losing trades, at least on average. Even if you win only a third of the trades that you enter, you can easily break even with this risk-reward ratio.

One thing you need to note though is that a risk-reward ratio of say 1:1 means you must win more trades to break even than a risk-reward ratio like 3:1.

Plan Your Exit Using Stop Loss and Take Profit
Stop loss helps a trader to minimize their losses while taking profit helps in maximizing their gains. When the stop loss limit or take profit level is triggered, the position closes.

There are trades that will trigger stop loss levels and thereafter turn around to record some of the biggest gains. However, the reverse is also true and therefore you must learn how to stick to your rules and only change where necessary.

Conclusion

Forex money management is a practice that traders and investors must not ignore. It helps in ensuring that your trades are not so much exposed to losses that wipe out your capital. As you work through the rules, you will need to tweak them from time to time as circumstances change to optimize your trades.

The post Forex money management: Why it should not be ignored by traders and investors appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

From concerns over NHS pay and pensions, to long term workforce planning and a sustainable plan for social care – there are no shortage of issues that healthcare professionals and patients expect to see at the top of the new Secretary of State’s ‘to-do ‘list. 

However, in this blog, the MDU focuses on three key medico-legal issues to address which will demonstrate government commitment to healthcare professionals. They are:

1. Support an exhausted workforce
2. Deliver modern healthcare professional regulation
3. Get to grips with runaway clinical negligence costs

Support for an exhausted workforce

All of us will be a patient at some point, and we want to be treated by a doctor who is alert and well rested. Yet sadly, an assumption remains that feeling constantly tired is the price you pay for pursuing a medical career. Recent studies show the workforce is truly running on empty.

A survey conducted by the MDU of over 530 doctors, found over a third of doctors felt sleep deprived on at least a weekly basis and over a quarter had been in a position where tiredness has impacted their ability to treat patients. 

The GMC’s latest national training survey reported that three in five trainees said they ‘always’ or ‘often’ feel worn out at the end of the working day. And 44% feel their work is emotionally exhausting to a high/very high degree. 

The government and NHS employers need to do more to ensure there are adequate resources in place to allow fatigued doctors to take regular breaks. Small things can make a big difference. This can include having a dedicated rest space, ensuring 24-hour access to substantial food and drink facilities, and establishing robust rotas. Those holding the profession to account – regulators like the GMC, the courts and indeed employers – must also properly take the current context into account

Deliver modern healthcare professional regulation

MDU members tell us that undergoing a GMC or GDC investigation is one of the most difficult experiences of their professional lives. The stress of being under scrutiny during a lengthy and potentially career-ending fitness to practise process can have a devastating impact, particularly for those who have dedicated their lives to care for others.  

Part of the problem is that the GMC and GDC fitness to practise procedures are rigid and still governed largely by outdated legislation. While limited progress has been possible, such as the introduction of provisional enquires at the GMC, only a complete reset of the regulators’ governing legislation can bring about a system that is truly modern, proportionate, timely and, above all, fair. 

Legislation to deliver reform was promised and seemingly in grasp earlier this year. We know the Department has been working on this for some time. However, the changes that are so badly needed have now been pushed to 2024 at the earliest. This is a huge setback and can only negatively affect morale at a time when the profession needs to attract and retain as many doctors as possible. 

If the government is looking for a policy that can quickly demonstrate their support of the medical and dental professions, GMC and GDC reform should be delivered in this session of Parliament.

Get to grips with runaway clinical negligence cost

The cost of meeting future claims liabilities now stands at a staggering £128 billion for the NHS in England. Payments for settled claims during the year to April 2022 also increased to £2.5 billion. Meanwhile, the NHS is facing serious workforce issues and needs extra funds to recruit and train more healthcare staff.  

It is sobering to realise that the cost of future claims liabilities are not far off the total budget for NHS England spending in 2022/23 – which is expected to be about £152.55 billion. 

The MDU has long championed a package of ambitious but deliverable legal reforms, which we believe could have a positive impact on costs, leaving more money in the system to benefit patients. 

The reforms we are calling for, include:

• Repeal section 2(4) of the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948. It requires the courts to disregard the existence of NHS care when determining compensation awards. 
• An independent body should define the NHS health and social care packages to provide an appropriate standard of care for all patients. Compensating bodies such as the MDU and the NHS itself should be required to fund care packages to provide the standard of care defined. This would keep more funds in the NHS. 
• Tackle disproportionate legal costs. MDU figures show the average sum paid in claimants’ legal costs on lower value claims continue to exceed the amount paid to claimants by two or three times. The Government needs to deliver on its promise to introduce fixed, proportionate, legal costs for cases valued up to £25,000 as soon as possible. That also should not be the end of it. We are urging the government to go further and increase the range of the fixed costs scheme to £250,000. 
• Damages for loss of earnings should be limited to three times the national average salary per year.

Swift legislative action, such as this, would be a welcome step forward in addressing the unsustainable cost of clinical negligence to the taxpayer. 

Healthcare is one of the most challenging policy areas in government. It is a challenge, largely because the health of the nation must surely be one of the first duties of any government. 

We urge the new government to pay serious heed to the issues we have raised in this paper. Healthcare professionals care for us, and we need to ensure they are cared for in return.

The post Shaping the healthcare agenda of the new government appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

The motivations of some of these apologists may seem good. Examining both sides of an argument, listening to all parties, and weighing up the evidence are all essentials of a modern, democratic society. It is also a natural instinct to look for meaning and justification when terrible events happen (Google “just-world fallacy”). But in this case, these instincts are misfiring, wrongfully looking for nuance and balance where it doesn’t exist.

‘Violence is wrong but don’t you think it is also wrong to offend people like he did?’ In a word: no. Ignore for the moment the way in which this question casually compares the writing of words that no one is compelled to read with the inescapable inflicting of life-changing injuries. We should take issue with the very idea that giving offence is fundamentally ‘wrong’.  

Some words do cause harm. Incitement to violence, incitement to hate, especially when these words target people who are socially vulnerable – words in this context can be a flame to a tinderbox. But just to be offended by itself is not to be harmed, and certainly not if this offence arises from literature, art, or intellectual expression. The feeling of being offended may be uncomfortable and we may choose not to expose ourselves to them (they are largely voluntary experiences – you have to read The Satanic Verses to be offended by it, after all). But to be disturbed in our opinions, to have them challenged, to encounter a different – perhaps profoundly shocking – new idea or perspective: in the final analysis, far from harmful, these experiences are gifts we are lucky to receive. 

Even if we did accept that being offended is to be harmed somehow, we still couldn’t say that it was always wrong. Some things cause harm, but we accept them as the price of other things which are more valuable. And surely to live in an open society with freedom of thought and freedom of expression is an example of one such valuable thing?

By being free to speak and to express ourselves we are happier and more fulfilled. We can develop our ideas and views and give full rein to our creativity and curiosity without fear. Freedom of expression creates the climate for scientific and social progress because it is only in the context of debate, dissent, and disagreement that truth emerges and knowledge can advance. Freedom of expression gives us access to the thoughts of others and through knowing their beliefs, values, and opinions, we not only have the opportunity to understand them better but to reconsider our own thoughts and to change our minds if we’re persuaded by views different from our own.

When we resile from these principles in the democratic world, we strike a blow against our own freedom, but we also betray the struggles of those elsewhere fighting for theirs. In 1988, Iran’s leading novelists, critics, and poets, mainly Muslim, all immediately came to Rushdie’s defence, awarding him the nation’s highest literary prize – and they risked their lives to do so. Arab and Persian authors wrote a letter in defence of his life and free expression, pleading, as much as anything, for their own freedom of expression, believing that no writer can flourish in a climate where ideas are not free. 

‘Look what you made me do,’ says the offended party with the bloodied knife in his hand. Put like that, can we ever accept such a defence? Not in a free and open society. Yet we see it being accepted more and more. We saw it in the aftermath analysis of the Charlie Hebdo shootings in 2015, we saw it after the killing of Samuel Paty in 2020, we saw it in the wake of a teacher going into hiding after showing images of Muhammad in a Batley Grammar School last year, and we’re again seeing it again with the attack on Salman Rushdie.

The post Having opinions challenged is a gift to be received appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

And this is a dramatic reversal of pre-pandemic trends, which had been seeing steady increases in the proportions of over 50s staying in work for the previous decade and longer. Compare current levels of working among all adults to what could have been expected had those pre-pandemic trends continued, and the Learning and Work Institute has estimated that we are looking at a missing million workers from the labour force.

This is a crisis, and it is a crisis made even more evident when comparing the UK experience with other countries. Thanks to the furlough scheme and other support, the UK saw a relatively small fall in employment compared to other G7 countries in the first phase of the pandemic. But most other countries have now bounced back, and even have employment rates higher than pre-pandemic. The UK in contrast has failed to pull this off, and now unhappily boasts the largest employment rate drop in the G7. Critically, this is not a problem of unemployment – of an increase in over 50s jobseekers unable to find work. In fact, job vacancies in the UK remain at a record level despite some reduction in the last month. Rather it is a crisis of participation – of people not working, but not looking for work either.

So why has this happened, and what can we do about it? For a small proportion, particularly at older ages, it is to be hoped that this has been a positive personal choice to retire early after perhaps reassessing what mattered to them and what they wanted out of life during the pandemic. It’s plausible that some of the slight rise in employment we have seen in the very latest employment statistics is a result of some over 50s returning to the workforce having reassessed whether or not they could in fact afford to retire early given the current and likely future cost of living. But a much more significant factor in the new trends we are seeing is long-term sickness. Around 274,000 more 16-64 year olds say they are not actively looking for work due to long-term sickness than at the start of the pandemic. 

Data on everything from routine operation waiting lists to accessing GP appointments points to an NHS under incredible strain. And recent research from University College London has shown that more than one in three British adults already have two or more chronic conditions in their 40s, such as back problems, mental health problems, high blood pressure and diabetes.

Meeting the needs of the millions of people with chronic physical and mental health conditions both in and out of work is going to be immensely difficult, but it couldn’t be more important, not just to our national health and wellbeing, but also to our economy. This has to include a focus on primary and community care, and on occupational health.

We also need to think differently about how we provide employment support. Current labour market policy interventions focus heavily on unemployment. The Restart programme is focused on long-term unemployed benefit claimants. The Kickstart scheme provides wage support for employers who take on young people at risk of long-term unemployment. Even the welcome recent announcement of investment in employment support for people over 50 is focussed principally on Job Centres – places that the current swathe of people no longer working may have never visited or never intend to visit.

While these are all worthy initiatives in themselves, they aren’t going to solve the participation crisis. We need to change approach. We need to find much better ways to engage and support people to get back into work that works for them.

Work currently underway in Greater Manchester could form part of the answer. The Combined Authority is working with the charity Centre for Ageing Better and the DWP to co-design better approaches with local people over 50. So far, they have prototyped two interventions that offer personalised support in ways that people value and say they want. One is a digital service, which enables people to identify existing and transferable skills, develop career goals and plans, and link them to local employment sectors that are growing and recruiting. The other is a radically different approach to the local procurement of employment support services that aims to remove barriers to small, more holistic and more innovative local providers from winning contracts to provide support.

What these approaches have in common is a desire to meet people where they are, and tailor support and advice accordingly, something that will be critical to support not just active jobseekers but also people who have never accessed DWP services. We will need more of these ideas in the months and years ahead. More local roadshows that bring employability professionals and CV writing clinics out of the job centre and into other settings. More targeted returner campaigns for local industries. More good quality, evidence-based careers guidance and support not just for school leavers but for adults of all ages. More employers actively seeking out people over 50 to fill their vacancies.

As yet, few employers are as enlightened as this. According to a recent poll from the Centre for Ageing Better, only 1 in 6 employers are very likely to introduce policies on age-inclusion in the workplace in the next 12 months. And more than a third of older workers feel their age would work against them in getting a new job. At the Phoenix Group, we’re taking part in a trial looking at how to eliminate age bias from the recruitment process. 

But bringing people over 50 back to work isn’t just about recruitment. It’s also about working conditions. When the Office of National Statistics explored with economically inactive people over 50 what would encourage them back work, flexible working and support for caring responsibilities ranked as the most important things they would look for. Getting serious about offering flexible working can feel difficult for some employers, but work from Timewise and the Institute for Employment Studies has shown it can deliver a return on investment even for sectors like construction, teaching and the NHS in terms of reduced sickness absence and improved retention within just a few years. At the moment, employees must have been employed for 26 weeks before they are entitled to make a flexible working request. We need to change this to a day one right, as committed to in the 2019 Conservative manifesto.

We also need to see more support for people with caring responsibilities. The 2019 Conservative manifesto also committed to introducing five days statutory unpaid carers leave for all workers, but has also yet to be legislated for. Recognising the reality of a two-parent working families, acknowledging that people need time and support to be able to able to care for children, for partners for parents, will be critical to encouraging more people back to work, particularly women on whom the responsibility for unpaid family care so often falls. When Beveridge set out his blueprint for what would become our welfare state, he assumed ‘during marriage most women will not be gainfully employed’, leaving them free to raise children and care for elderly and sick relatives and neighbours. It is the giant outdated 20th century cultural assumption that strangles our attempts at delivering a welfare state and decent employment conditions in the 21st century. 

Finally, we need to think differently about adult learning and skills.

We need a system that supports people to learn, upskill and change careers across their lives. But very little of our current learning and skills provision is targeted at people at mid-life and older. There’s a huge potential untapped market for the education and training providers who see the opportunity to target and tailor courses to help those mid-career and older. In a recent poll we conducted, 79% of people agreed that offering formal training beyond the basic functions of a job has a positive effect on people’s performance at work, and 81% agreed that getting formal training can greatly increase the chances of finding a job for those who are unemployed or at risk of redundancy. But 61% of those in work said they have not been offered any formal training through their job in the last 12 months. Trends in employer investment in training are worryingly in decline, just at a time when investment in skills is so critical to our economic growth.

None of these ideas are quick fixes. None will give the new Prime Minister a chance to don a hard hat and stand in front of some grand new infrastructure project. They are the messy work of recalibrating relationships and expectations. Between people who are ill and the health care system. Between employees and employers. Between people who don’t see how they can earn money again and services that can really help them. But they are absolutely fundamental to fixing our participation crisis and growing our economy.

The post How to fix the participation crisis appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

The health and care bill is a flagship piece of legislation for the government. It has sparked considerable debate in the healthcare community and beyond. It is also a bill that covers a multitude of areas: from defining integrated care boards and restructuring NHS England, to setting advertising conditions for food and drink. For the MDU, one of the most important aspects of the bill is the formal inception of the Healthcare Safety Investigation’s Branch (HSIB) as a statutory, independent arm’s length body – the Health Services Safety Investigations Body (HSSIB).

An important feature of the new HSSIB is the ‘safe-space’ that this legislation creates in its investigations. The aim of the safe-space is to encourage healthcare professionals to engage fully and openly, without fear or blame, because of a prohibition on the HSSIB from disclosing information obtained in its investigations following adverse patient safety events – save for a few exceptions.

One of those exceptions is disclosure to a coroner. This is a small but fundamentally important point.

Since the bill was published last year, the MDU has been determinedly campaigning to secure the removal of coroners from the list of exemptions – and with it their ability to access information in the safe-space. The House of Lords voted by a sizeable majority in favour of Lord Hunt of Kings Heath’s amendment, which does precisely that. 

The MDU is urging the government to accept this amendment and calling on MPs to support it.

If coroners are allowed to routinely request access to information held by the HSSIB – naming individual doctors and other healthcare professionals – then we fear the ‘safe-space’ could fail in the eyes of NHS staff, before it has even begun. That’s because of the ramifications of being named in a coroner’s investigation could be profound – such as the possibility of being involved in a fitness to practise investigation by a regulator. 

For the HSSIB’s investigations to yield the results we all want to see, with improvements identified in the interests of patient safety, it is vital that the safe-space is as robust as possible – as safe as possible.

The creation of the HSSIB is such a positive step forward for the NHS. It is a landmark moment in the journey towards fostering an open, learning, no-blame culture. The safe-space is at the heart of this. We urge the government to accept the amendment and deliver a HSSIB that can inspire the confidence of the profession.

Do you agree with us? If so, you can email your MP and urge them to support the MDU campaign. 

If you don’t know the contact details for your MP, you can find them here by typing in your home postcode. If you do contact your MP about the bill, please do let us know.

The post Supporting a culture of learning in the NHS appeared first on Politics.co.uk.