Enhanced Disclosure per person rather than activity

(Speaking for the situation in Scotland – don't know about rest of UK)

Currently a separate disclosure is required for each activity – perhaps a central database could be checked against a disclosure number and name (with the permission of the person concerned). 

Why is this idea important?

(Speaking for the situation in Scotland – don't know about rest of UK)

Currently a separate disclosure is required for each activity – perhaps a central database could be checked against a disclosure number and name (with the permission of the person concerned). 

Abolish unnecessary Human Rights Act

Who is the Human Rights Act supposed to protect? Citizens of a law abiding democratic country? If so, it isn't working! The only people who benefit from this unnecessary legislation are criminals, prison inmates, terrorists, hate preachers, bogus asylum seekers and the Lawyers & Barristers who represent them (at tax payers expense!)

As one of the recognised leaders of the western world, is it really necessary to retain the so called 'Human Rights Act'? Our laws and judicial system coped perfectly adaquately before the introduction of this Act.

This Act needs to be abolished and replaced with a British Bill of Rights ASAP!!

Why is this idea important?

Who is the Human Rights Act supposed to protect? Citizens of a law abiding democratic country? If so, it isn't working! The only people who benefit from this unnecessary legislation are criminals, prison inmates, terrorists, hate preachers, bogus asylum seekers and the Lawyers & Barristers who represent them (at tax payers expense!)

As one of the recognised leaders of the western world, is it really necessary to retain the so called 'Human Rights Act'? Our laws and judicial system coped perfectly adaquately before the introduction of this Act.

This Act needs to be abolished and replaced with a British Bill of Rights ASAP!!

The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 and its cost on Business

The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 and its cost on Business

I’d like to make a complaint about The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 and request that it be repealed completely as it does absolutely nothing to stop illegal immigration or illegal workers in the UK, but it does cause a lot of grief and harassment for people who were born in this country, have lived here all their lives and have the lawful right to work here.

The Act costs businesses a lot of time and money chasing documentation and doesn’t provide any remedy or solution for workers who don’t have the identifications being requested, nor are they required to have and hold such identification in law. The Act also does nothing for people like myself who have religious beliefs that are opposed to carrying or using ID of any kind and provides no remedy to threats from employers of dismissal.

The company I work for a year ago started to bombard me with emails requesting that I bring in a passport and birth certificate. I don’t have a birth certificate and at the time my passport was misplaced, as I have not been overseas for 5 years. The company kept demanding these documents and I kept informing them that I don’t have any of the documents they were requesting nor was I obliged to have, hold, possess or carry them in law.

I had also stated to them that even if I had a birth certificate which I don’t that I have been informed that a birth certificate is not a valid proof of identity and it clearly states this on birth certificates “It is NOT evidence of the identity of the person(s) presenting it.” I did not have a birth certificate or any of the other documents they requested at the time such as a passport.

Eventually I had a meeting with someone from the HR department who had previously told me they would provide a list of other documents that would be acceptable instead. They didn’t mention any other documents in the meeting but just kept asking for the same documents I had already told them I didn’t have or had misplaced.

I asked several times what law requires me to possess any of the documentation they were requesting or to do any of this and each time they avoided the question like the plague, and were unable to tell me what law.  "Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal and moral duty to speak or when an inquiry is left unanswered and would be intentionally misleading.”

Eventually they simply said that it was company policy and provided me with a booklet detailing the Right to Work policy of the company. I kept asking what other documents I could bring instead, but they were unable to mention any.  “You have to reveal the terms of any contract and if formally noticed and questioned about the liabilities imposed by said contract, you must answer. Otherwise there is no duty.”

I also mentioned that I had already given my national insurance number to them when I first started working there and it is stated on the pay slip they give me every four weeks. If I wasn’t able to provide them with this when I first started working there almost 10 years ago they wouldn’t have been able to make deductions for tax and national insurance all these years so its absurd that they are requesting this again. What have they done with the original information I provided when I first started working there?

The booklet they provided stated that they should sit down with each worker and go through the information with them and explain everything. The company I work for has not done this with anyone that works there. They just bombard you with emails and expect you to bring in documents you don’t even possess. This is harassment. The last time I checked this wasn’t Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union it’s Great Britain! Their right to work policy booklet also says that the documents checks are for “potential new” employees before they start work. I am not a “potential new” employee, I have been there almost ten years now, and started working there a considerably long time ago, so I clearly shouldn’t have even been asked.

In one of the emails I was sent by someone at the company requesting this, they stated that there was no suggestion that I didn’t have the right to work. If there’s no suggestion that I don’t have the right, why do I need to prove that I do, and why are the company harassing me for things that are not lawful anyway? There is a legal maxim that “One who does not deny admits”. If no law has been broken, no crime committed, no life lost, no freedom breached, no property damaged, no rights infringed, then why is the company I work for harassing me like Gestapo agents for documentation when I have worked there almost ten years? I am being treated like a common criminal and interviewed by wannabe detectives from HR without any justifiable reason and contrary to the common law of the land.

 

 

When I read through the document it shows that a Statutory Declaration would be acceptable, so I went to a solicitors, paid the £5-00 fee and did the declaration, which was witnessed and signed to state who I was, my nationality, name and to show I have the right to work here. I was unable to provide any of the documents they were requesting at the time so could only give them the Statutory Declaration confirming my identity and nationality as well as a copy of my driving license. They took copies of these and said that they were fine after consulting with other people within the company.

Now a year later they have come back to me and said that the Statutory Declaration (a legal document) isn’t acceptable and not valid and they need my national insurance card from when I left school. I left school almost 20 years ago and doubt very much I have this anymore. I have since found my passport, which expires next year, which I have said I will bring instead. This clearly seems like a follow up check, which is only meant to be for people who do not have a permanent right to work in the country, according to their own policy booklet. I do have a permanent right to work here, have provided them documentation, which they accepted as being valid in August 2009, yet I am still being harassed for more a year later and suffering detrimental treatment.

I would like to ask the question, if the company I work for doesn’t believe that the Statutory Declaration Act of Parliament that allows you to make a Statutory Declaration is valid and they are not willing to accept my Statutory Declaration, which is a valid legal document, then how on Earth can they believe that the The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act is any more valid? It seems like the company I work for is picking and choosing which legislation and Acts of Parliament they are going to follow and which they are going to blatantly ignore despite their own company policy saying that Statutory Declarations are accepted.

Also why has it taken them almost a year to suddenly decide that a valid legal document witnessed under oath and counter signed by a solicitor is not an acceptable proof? And why was it acceptable proof to them a year ago something which they double-checked with other people in HR and the Legal department? A Statutory Declaration is a powerful legal document taken under oath and penalty of perjury.

Why do they regard a birth certificate as valid proof of identity when it apparently states on birth certificates that it isn’t a valid proof of identity? This is absolutely absurd and half-witted policy.

They want me to produce a worthless piece of paper I don’t have namely a “birth certificate” that isn’t proof of identity or relate to the individual presenting it, and believe a legal document that is proof of identity and does relate to the individual presenting and is taken under their oath and penalty of perjury isn’t valid.

I believe the HR department of the company I work for are clearly incompetent and don’t know what they are doing, but I’m not surprised by this given all the legislation and regulations they have to comply with, especially this ridiculous Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act. The only thing this Act is serving to do is to constrain the law abiding, and cost business a lot of time and money in the process.

Why is this idea important?

The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 and its cost on Business

I’d like to make a complaint about The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 and request that it be repealed completely as it does absolutely nothing to stop illegal immigration or illegal workers in the UK, but it does cause a lot of grief and harassment for people who were born in this country, have lived here all their lives and have the lawful right to work here.

The Act costs businesses a lot of time and money chasing documentation and doesn’t provide any remedy or solution for workers who don’t have the identifications being requested, nor are they required to have and hold such identification in law. The Act also does nothing for people like myself who have religious beliefs that are opposed to carrying or using ID of any kind and provides no remedy to threats from employers of dismissal.

The company I work for a year ago started to bombard me with emails requesting that I bring in a passport and birth certificate. I don’t have a birth certificate and at the time my passport was misplaced, as I have not been overseas for 5 years. The company kept demanding these documents and I kept informing them that I don’t have any of the documents they were requesting nor was I obliged to have, hold, possess or carry them in law.

I had also stated to them that even if I had a birth certificate which I don’t that I have been informed that a birth certificate is not a valid proof of identity and it clearly states this on birth certificates “It is NOT evidence of the identity of the person(s) presenting it.” I did not have a birth certificate or any of the other documents they requested at the time such as a passport.

Eventually I had a meeting with someone from the HR department who had previously told me they would provide a list of other documents that would be acceptable instead. They didn’t mention any other documents in the meeting but just kept asking for the same documents I had already told them I didn’t have or had misplaced.

I asked several times what law requires me to possess any of the documentation they were requesting or to do any of this and each time they avoided the question like the plague, and were unable to tell me what law.  "Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal and moral duty to speak or when an inquiry is left unanswered and would be intentionally misleading.”

Eventually they simply said that it was company policy and provided me with a booklet detailing the Right to Work policy of the company. I kept asking what other documents I could bring instead, but they were unable to mention any.  “You have to reveal the terms of any contract and if formally noticed and questioned about the liabilities imposed by said contract, you must answer. Otherwise there is no duty.”

I also mentioned that I had already given my national insurance number to them when I first started working there and it is stated on the pay slip they give me every four weeks. If I wasn’t able to provide them with this when I first started working there almost 10 years ago they wouldn’t have been able to make deductions for tax and national insurance all these years so its absurd that they are requesting this again. What have they done with the original information I provided when I first started working there?

The booklet they provided stated that they should sit down with each worker and go through the information with them and explain everything. The company I work for has not done this with anyone that works there. They just bombard you with emails and expect you to bring in documents you don’t even possess. This is harassment. The last time I checked this wasn’t Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union it’s Great Britain! Their right to work policy booklet also says that the documents checks are for “potential new” employees before they start work. I am not a “potential new” employee, I have been there almost ten years now, and started working there a considerably long time ago, so I clearly shouldn’t have even been asked.

In one of the emails I was sent by someone at the company requesting this, they stated that there was no suggestion that I didn’t have the right to work. If there’s no suggestion that I don’t have the right, why do I need to prove that I do, and why are the company harassing me for things that are not lawful anyway? There is a legal maxim that “One who does not deny admits”. If no law has been broken, no crime committed, no life lost, no freedom breached, no property damaged, no rights infringed, then why is the company I work for harassing me like Gestapo agents for documentation when I have worked there almost ten years? I am being treated like a common criminal and interviewed by wannabe detectives from HR without any justifiable reason and contrary to the common law of the land.

 

 

When I read through the document it shows that a Statutory Declaration would be acceptable, so I went to a solicitors, paid the £5-00 fee and did the declaration, which was witnessed and signed to state who I was, my nationality, name and to show I have the right to work here. I was unable to provide any of the documents they were requesting at the time so could only give them the Statutory Declaration confirming my identity and nationality as well as a copy of my driving license. They took copies of these and said that they were fine after consulting with other people within the company.

Now a year later they have come back to me and said that the Statutory Declaration (a legal document) isn’t acceptable and not valid and they need my national insurance card from when I left school. I left school almost 20 years ago and doubt very much I have this anymore. I have since found my passport, which expires next year, which I have said I will bring instead. This clearly seems like a follow up check, which is only meant to be for people who do not have a permanent right to work in the country, according to their own policy booklet. I do have a permanent right to work here, have provided them documentation, which they accepted as being valid in August 2009, yet I am still being harassed for more a year later and suffering detrimental treatment.

I would like to ask the question, if the company I work for doesn’t believe that the Statutory Declaration Act of Parliament that allows you to make a Statutory Declaration is valid and they are not willing to accept my Statutory Declaration, which is a valid legal document, then how on Earth can they believe that the The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act is any more valid? It seems like the company I work for is picking and choosing which legislation and Acts of Parliament they are going to follow and which they are going to blatantly ignore despite their own company policy saying that Statutory Declarations are accepted.

Also why has it taken them almost a year to suddenly decide that a valid legal document witnessed under oath and counter signed by a solicitor is not an acceptable proof? And why was it acceptable proof to them a year ago something which they double-checked with other people in HR and the Legal department? A Statutory Declaration is a powerful legal document taken under oath and penalty of perjury.

Why do they regard a birth certificate as valid proof of identity when it apparently states on birth certificates that it isn’t a valid proof of identity? This is absolutely absurd and half-witted policy.

They want me to produce a worthless piece of paper I don’t have namely a “birth certificate” that isn’t proof of identity or relate to the individual presenting it, and believe a legal document that is proof of identity and does relate to the individual presenting and is taken under their oath and penalty of perjury isn’t valid.

I believe the HR department of the company I work for are clearly incompetent and don’t know what they are doing, but I’m not surprised by this given all the legislation and regulations they have to comply with, especially this ridiculous Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act. The only thing this Act is serving to do is to constrain the law abiding, and cost business a lot of time and money in the process.

Get rid of faith schools, morning prayers in the House of Commons, and make using religion to aid election to office an indictable offence.

England should have freedom for all faith denominations – and none. A secular, enlightened country is what we have (but that isn't represented in some of the backwards religious practices and traditions we still hold). Get rid of these antiquated religious traditions and keep Britain free of religious hogwash. Using Christianity like Blair did during the Iraq War (and his time in office generally) should be an indictable offence. There should be no comprehensive schools that cater to any religious denominations, and mandatory prayer in schools, institutions, and government should be illegal. The Blasphemy Act ought also to be repealed.

Why is this idea important?

England should have freedom for all faith denominations – and none. A secular, enlightened country is what we have (but that isn't represented in some of the backwards religious practices and traditions we still hold). Get rid of these antiquated religious traditions and keep Britain free of religious hogwash. Using Christianity like Blair did during the Iraq War (and his time in office generally) should be an indictable offence. There should be no comprehensive schools that cater to any religious denominations, and mandatory prayer in schools, institutions, and government should be illegal. The Blasphemy Act ought also to be repealed.

Remove dental professionals from regulation by the Care Quality Commission

Background
The Dental Law Partnership is a specialist solicitors’ company which acts exclusively for dental patients, representing them in clinical negligence litigation. The Directors of the Dental Law Partnership are doubly qualified dentists and solicitors. We therefore have a special interest in the safety of dental patients and the quality of dental care. We are profoundly concerned regarding the impact of CQC regulation upon the delivery of dental care in England.

Relevant Legislation
The former Secretary of State for Health introduced the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2009 which came into force on 1st April 2010. The impact of those regulations was to widen dramatically the jurisdiction of the Care Quality Commission (CQC) which had originally been established to regulate only the large organisations involved in the delivery of health and social care – NHS Trusts, Private Hospitals etc. Just one year after the establishment of the CQC, the introduction of the 2009 Regulations brought individual health care professionals into CQC regulation including, by operation of Schedule 1, s5(4)(a) and (d) of the Regulations, the activities of all dental professionals including dentists, dental nurses, dental hygienists and therapists, dental technicians and orthodontic therapists. Following the Regulations the CQC set the date for the proposed registration and regulation of dental professionals at 1st April 2011.

Comparison of CQC regulation with existing regulation of dental professionals by the General Dental Council
Dental Professionals are currently regulated by the General Dental Council. We have considered the likely impact of proposed CQC regulation of dental professionals upon the activities of dental professionals, and in particular have compared the existing regulatory jurisdiction of the General Dental Council with the proposed jurisdiction of the CQC in order to determine whether or not additional CQC regulation of the dental profession from April 2011 is likely to improve patient safety or treatment outcomes.

The comparative analysis involved a consideration of the CQC’s own guidance regarding compliance with Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2009 and Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009 published in December 2009, and the professional guidance for dental professionals issued by the General Dental Council since May 2005. The Headings considered are those of the CQC with the relevant CQC ‘Outcomes’ recorded. It should be noted that a number of CQC ‘Outcomes’ are not relevant to individual dental professionals and have not been considered.

Involvement and Information
CQC Outcome 1 Respect for individuals
CQC Outcome 2 Consent to care and treatment
CQC Outcome 3 Fees

Our conclusion is that in the area of involvement and information, the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s3. GDC Principles of Patient Consent s1, s2, s3. GDC Principles of Patient Confidentiality s1, s2, s3.

Personalised care, treatment and support
CQC Outcome 4 Care and welfare of people who use services
CQC Outcome 6 Co-operating with other providers

Our conclusion is that in the area of personalised care, treatment and support, the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s4, GDC Principles of Dental Team Working s1, s2, s3, s4, s5

Safeguarding and safety
CQC Outcome 7 Safeguarding people
CQC Outcome 8 Cleanliness and infection control
CQC Outcome 9 Management of medicines
CQC Outcome 10 Safety and suitability of premises
CQC Outcome 11 Safety, availability and suitability of equipment

Our conclusion is that in the area of safeguarding and safety the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s3, GDC Principles of Raising Concerns s1, s2, s3.

Suitability of staffing
CQC Outcome 12 Requirements relating to workers
CQC Outcome 13 Staffing
CQC Outcome 14 Supporting workers

Our conclusion is that the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s3. GDC Principles of Dental Team Working s1, s2, s3, s4, s5, GDC Principles of Raising Concerns s4

Quality and management
CQC Outcome 16 Assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision
CQC Outcome 17 Complaints
CQC Outcome 21 Records
CQC Outcome 25 Registered person: training

Our conclusion is that in the area of quality and management the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s5, GDC Principles of Complaints Handling s1, s2, s3, s4, s5, s6, s7. GDC Principles of Raising Concerns s1, s2.

Overall
Our analysis indicates the regulation of the dental profession by the CQC would create widespread duplication of existing areas of regulation both in terms of coverage and substantive requirements.
 

Why is this idea important?

Background
The Dental Law Partnership is a specialist solicitors’ company which acts exclusively for dental patients, representing them in clinical negligence litigation. The Directors of the Dental Law Partnership are doubly qualified dentists and solicitors. We therefore have a special interest in the safety of dental patients and the quality of dental care. We are profoundly concerned regarding the impact of CQC regulation upon the delivery of dental care in England.

Relevant Legislation
The former Secretary of State for Health introduced the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2009 which came into force on 1st April 2010. The impact of those regulations was to widen dramatically the jurisdiction of the Care Quality Commission (CQC) which had originally been established to regulate only the large organisations involved in the delivery of health and social care – NHS Trusts, Private Hospitals etc. Just one year after the establishment of the CQC, the introduction of the 2009 Regulations brought individual health care professionals into CQC regulation including, by operation of Schedule 1, s5(4)(a) and (d) of the Regulations, the activities of all dental professionals including dentists, dental nurses, dental hygienists and therapists, dental technicians and orthodontic therapists. Following the Regulations the CQC set the date for the proposed registration and regulation of dental professionals at 1st April 2011.

Comparison of CQC regulation with existing regulation of dental professionals by the General Dental Council
Dental Professionals are currently regulated by the General Dental Council. We have considered the likely impact of proposed CQC regulation of dental professionals upon the activities of dental professionals, and in particular have compared the existing regulatory jurisdiction of the General Dental Council with the proposed jurisdiction of the CQC in order to determine whether or not additional CQC regulation of the dental profession from April 2011 is likely to improve patient safety or treatment outcomes.

The comparative analysis involved a consideration of the CQC’s own guidance regarding compliance with Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2009 and Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009 published in December 2009, and the professional guidance for dental professionals issued by the General Dental Council since May 2005. The Headings considered are those of the CQC with the relevant CQC ‘Outcomes’ recorded. It should be noted that a number of CQC ‘Outcomes’ are not relevant to individual dental professionals and have not been considered.

Involvement and Information
CQC Outcome 1 Respect for individuals
CQC Outcome 2 Consent to care and treatment
CQC Outcome 3 Fees

Our conclusion is that in the area of involvement and information, the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s3. GDC Principles of Patient Consent s1, s2, s3. GDC Principles of Patient Confidentiality s1, s2, s3.

Personalised care, treatment and support
CQC Outcome 4 Care and welfare of people who use services
CQC Outcome 6 Co-operating with other providers

Our conclusion is that in the area of personalised care, treatment and support, the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s4, GDC Principles of Dental Team Working s1, s2, s3, s4, s5

Safeguarding and safety
CQC Outcome 7 Safeguarding people
CQC Outcome 8 Cleanliness and infection control
CQC Outcome 9 Management of medicines
CQC Outcome 10 Safety and suitability of premises
CQC Outcome 11 Safety, availability and suitability of equipment

Our conclusion is that in the area of safeguarding and safety the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s3, GDC Principles of Raising Concerns s1, s2, s3.

Suitability of staffing
CQC Outcome 12 Requirements relating to workers
CQC Outcome 13 Staffing
CQC Outcome 14 Supporting workers

Our conclusion is that the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s3. GDC Principles of Dental Team Working s1, s2, s3, s4, s5, GDC Principles of Raising Concerns s4

Quality and management
CQC Outcome 16 Assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision
CQC Outcome 17 Complaints
CQC Outcome 21 Records
CQC Outcome 25 Registered person: training

Our conclusion is that in the area of quality and management the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s5, GDC Principles of Complaints Handling s1, s2, s3, s4, s5, s6, s7. GDC Principles of Raising Concerns s1, s2.

Overall
Our analysis indicates the regulation of the dental profession by the CQC would create widespread duplication of existing areas of regulation both in terms of coverage and substantive requirements.