Report from the Select Committee of the House of Lords on Early Closing of Shops

1901 ◽  
Vol 11 (43) ◽  
pp. 449
Keyword(s):  
Select Committee ◽  
House Of Lords

The lost worlds of royal commissions in the NHS: The unaccountable in pursuit of the unanswerable?

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 199-217
Author(s):  
Martin Powell
Keyword(s):  
National Health Service ◽  
Health Service ◽  
National Health ◽  
Royal Commission ◽  
Select Committee ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Impact ◽  
British National Health ◽  
Advisory Bodies

There have been recent calls for a royal commission (RC) on the British National Health Service (NHS). This article focuses on the impact of RCs and similar advisory bodies, particularly on finance recommendations, of three inquiries with broad remits across the whole of the NHS from very different periods: Guillebaud (1956); Royal Commission on the National Health Service (1979); and House of Lords Select Committee on the Long-term Sustainability of the NHS (2017). These inquiries appear to have had rather limited impacts, especially on NHS funding. First, there appears to be some hesitancy in suggesting precise figures for NHS expenditure. Second, the reports are advisory, and governments can ignore their conclusions. Third, governments have ignored their conclusions. In the 1950s and the 1980s, contrary to the recommendations of the inquiries, NHS expenditure subsequently grew only slowly, and charges were increased. In short, asking an independent RC to provide answers on NHS expenditure is perhaps the unaccountable in pursuit of the unanswerable.

Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) – where do we go from here?

2015 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Lennard
Keyword(s):  
Good Practice ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Select Committee ◽  
Cumulative Impact ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Complex Processes ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Health And Social Care ◽  
Mental Capacity Act

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to give a brief background to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), and studies which factors Best Interests Assessors consider when making a judgement on Deprivation of Liberty. It examines some of the reasons why professionals may be under-using DoLS, including lack of knowledge, complex processes and paperwork, and the pejorative nature of the word “deprivation”, and looks at a possible way forward. Design/methodology/approach – The paper looks at the evidence to the House of Commons and House of Lords Committees on the Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act, as well as previous and current research papers. It examines the nuances of difference between restriction and deprivation, and the cumulative impact of several restrictions, which may, in fact, amount to a deprivation, illustrated by case studies from the author's own practice. Findings – It makes the case that health and social care professionals should err on the side of caution, by making precautionary DoLS applications, arguing that MCA DoLS is a forerunner of good practice, and that good care planning allied to judicious application of the MCA leads to better, more robust and more defensible decision making. Originality/value – And it points the way to a possible future, citing the recommendations of the Select Committee on the MCA for a clearer link between DoLS and the principles underpinning the MCA, and for simplifying and clarifying the legislative provisions and the associated paperwork.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document