The Department of Health has denied accusations from the Tory party that it is busy rewriting contracts with IT suppliers in a massive stitch-up ahead of the election. The Tories told the BBC that the NHS's Connecting for Health was busy trying to get contracts signed within the next four weeks in order to force any incoming …
Smoke, fire and all that
This isn't the first thing to coincidentally pop up in the final days of this government (think change to general election voting system) so I'm with the Tories on this one. Labour have no intention of cancelling the project or they wouldn't be trying to get it all signed and sealed this quickly. Clearly they do want to prevent others from cancelling their white elephant, erm, glorious legacy.
I winced as I read this because of the oft-repeated yet never leant lesson err in haste, "repent at leisure" - either way we're going to get shafted by the incumbents if this deal is rushed through.
elephant / legacy?
Nah. More like their mates in the Big Government IT Projects business have pointed out that if it all goes south they can whistle for their bribe^H^H^H^H^Hdonations later this year.
pledged to decentralise the scheme
"pledged to decentralise the scheme" making my personal health data even more inseurce..I will not be voting Tory
"even more insecure"?
Without any idea of what such a decentralisation might consist of, how it might look or what if any technology and security systems may be used in such, it's completely impossible to justify that statement. There's only one conclusion to be drawn here.
You are a sad little New Labour troll and ICMFP.
I do not think so somehow
Well we know that one there plans would be for local GPs to manage there IT systems, presumable keeping the data stored locally, well that what cameron said in one of his speeches, in a GP building which are usually unsecured an easily broken into, one of the locals ones be done twist in that last year.
Give than they are also unlikely to have anyone above them to check that there passwords are to scratch, security software are updated regularly, an consider my local GP secretary writse her passwords on a piece of paper which is left it on the desk for the world to see, hell I could of swipe the peace of paper an she probably would not even notice, I would bet security would be a utter disgrace if the conservatives get there way. Also local GPs are run like a business nowadays, an are generally very efficient which is why they can afford to pay themselves so much. I can guarantee many of them will go for the cheapest one they can buy.
Also under conservatives plans they have yet to announce how much there ideas will cost or how long it will take to implement there plans, this despite an 6 months review into the nhs IT scheme. An one thing they fail to announce is how they will fund there plans.
Also a other big problem they will face is all these companies will see a chance to gain money for nothing, I mean it the buyer that is redrawing from the contracts an there all those get out clauses , I guaranteed they will walk away from the contracts with hundreds of millions for delivering nothing.
An if you do not think this is the case, one company already demanding 700hundred million for getting fired from the project.
I suspect that once the conservatives are in power they will very quickly relies that cancelling the contracts are impossible or simply cost to much to do so. They will eventually swallow there pride, make some round edges changes, which will change nothing but probably add some more costs to the project but make them appear to do something, which will result in very little change to the current plans.
Aye, the tories would never have done that...
except when it was the contract for Trident (£20bn in '82), payable whether the UK took delivery of the 4 subs and associated missiles or not
jobs for the boys and girls
need to get these contracts signed or else when I get voted out there will be nowhere for me to get a job.
There should be a law which says in you were involved in any aspect of procurement then when you leave office you are NOT allowed to go and work for the people you procured from.
Lord Mandy please take note... Althought any company he has helped recently seems to quickly go down the tubes quickly. except Geffen of course.
There should be a law ...
It's handled by the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments see http://acoba.independent.gov.uk/
...if the Tory definition of "decentralise" is still "give it all to Google". I look forward to all our health data being in the hands of people like Eric Emerson "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place," Schmidt. There's a man to trust. Besides which, the Tories are absolutely the last people who should complain about poison pills - they're the bunch that broke the railways into 126 separate companies, and, flying in the face of good practice and proven working examples of privatisation, divorced train operations and ownership from track operations and ownership. Why? For the sole and simple purpose of making renationalisation next to impossible. Not for any sound business reason, not in the interests of the travelling public, purely to screw the opposition - and we've been paying for it ever since. So the government is trying to tidy up some contracts and the Tories' feelings are hurt. Cry me a fucking river.
...one of those lovely buzzwords isn’t it ? It smacks of democracy, power to the people, two fingers to Big Brother, isn’t decentralisation just great ?
The railways were decentralised to start with, that’s why they all used different track gauges, and each company’s trains couldn’t run on another company’s tracks. How their passengers *adored* having to change trains in the pouring rain ! Eventually the train companies realised that such a ‘choice’ was a pile of cobblers : in order for anyone to get anywhere efficiently, they all had to agree on a national standard track width (and on the continent, inter-national standards).
This is effectively the way that IT was implemented in the NHS for a number of years : every local area bought their own system – who cared if the NHS in the next city used something completely incompatible ? Why would a hospital in, say, Manchester *ever* want to access the health record for a person who lived in Liverpool ? Eventually some bright spark realised that there had to be a national standards to allow data to be transferred, or we may as well stick with typewriters/liquid paper/envelopes/stamps, and people dying unnecessarily in A&E because their medical records are in filing cabinets at their GPs (which are 100 miles away, and closed til Monday morning).
So now the bright sparks in the Tory party want to roll back that centralisation, on the grounds that NPfIT has – gasp ! - cost *some money* (£12 billion over 10 years – a whole £20 per UK citizen per year ! What an absolute fortune !!!). This is nothing but political point-scoring that flies in the face of any technical logic. Which is, of course, what we pay politicians for...business as freakin' usual in the sinking ship SS Great Britain.
Mine's the one with the passport.
The Tories seemed pretty happy to say that they wouldn't honour contracts that were associated with the National Identity Database -- why don't they just do the same here.
i.e. "All contracts signed by the incumbents between now and the election will be up for review, and will only be honoured if they are deemed a worthwhile use of public money. Suppliers will have the choice of either suing for breach of contract, or not. Of course, their ability to cooperate will be taken into account in future tendering rounds."
And of course it is entirely coincidental that...
The Tories have proclaimed they will not pursue centralisation via the SCR/spine and the DoH is currently driving a massive mail-out to millions patients in England giving them a one-time opportunity to decline to have their records transferred to the spine, accompanied by propaganda about why they shouldn't but no actual opt-out form - which has to be obtained separately.
"A spokeswoman for the Department of Health denied there was any attempt at a stitch-up"
No shit Sherlock? Ever found someone willingly replying
"Oh yes, we're attempting a stitch-up. But keep it to yourself, willya? Good lad."
Would make an interesting law.
The "Review of Government Contracts Awarded After A General Election is Announced Act"
Deeply disliked by party whips, fully supported by the Taxpayers Alliance.
Definitely sounds like the NHS IT types know the writing is on the wall.
At this time in an election cycle, the civil service generally enters a state of purdah. No new announcements will be made, no new contracts will be signed *that weren't due to be signed*, the machinery of government, ie civil service, carries on.
That is not to say that Ministers and special advisers, ie, political appointees, won't make announcements.
Just a point of order; as you were...
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.
That is all.
- Updated Zucker punched: Google gobbles Facebook-wooed Titan Aerospace
- Elon Musk's LEAKY THRUSTER gas stalls Space Station supply run
- Windows 8.1, which you probably haven't upgraded to yet, ALREADY OBSOLETE
- FOUR DAYS: That's how long it took to crack Galaxy S5 fingerscanner
- Did a date calculation bug just cost hard-up Co-op Bank £110m?