To consider any requests received in accordance with Part 4, Section B, paragraph 29 of the Council’s constitution.
Minutes:
The Committee received a deputation from Alan Morten of Haringey Keep Our NHS Public (KONP) that focussed on the Governments 10 Year Plan, NLC ICB staffing and funding costs and the future of NCL JHOSC. The deputation emphasised that the ideas within the 10-Year Plan were great but there was very little detail to go with the aspirations put forward. Alan Morten expressed that there was common knowledge that there is no new funding available and that the ICB would be becoming more of a growing a strategic commissioner and therefor removed from the problems for each locality.
The deputation also covered the issue of digitisation, acknowledging that there are benefits but questioned the aspirations of the Federated Data Platform (FDP) and Secure Data Environment (SDE) and what will be done with the publics data. A Financial Times article highlighting the links between NWL ICS and links to Global Council was also a concern given that NCL was in the process of merging with them.
Alan Morten highlighted that big data companies were buying ups small data start up and creating a monopoly and this is against the interests of the general public. The ask from Haringey KONP is for the JHOSC to seek assurance that data is used for the benefit of residents and not for large data companies. Haringey KONP is further exasperated by the fact that the Integrated Care System will be dealing with a larger population once merged.
Richard Dale, Chief Strategy Officer, NWL & NCL ICB explained that they will come back regarding digital and data as part of the overall strategy piece (Follow Up). The Chief Strategy Officer briefed that the London Care Record has been in place for up to 5 years, lots of use clinicians use it to read peoples care records, held securely in the NHS environment. Amazon web services and Google cloud is also use by a number of Trusts and there are clauses in place to ensure that the data can’t be used outside of NHS environment.
It was explained further that FDP is a nationally procured platform and available for Trusts to use and it’s up to each Trust to take a judgment about choosing to use it. The Chair acknowledged the difference between where this sits with the providers as opposed to the ICB. Recommendation: The committee to ask hospitals within the JHOSC area if they are using Palantir to run their data sourcing for them and if not, what was the reason behind their choice not to use them.
Councillor Connor asserted that the JHOSC can ask for information around data protection and information governance policies with the ICB as part of their role in managing their data responsibilities and carrying our risk assessments related to the data platforms, so they are not completely removed from the process. In essence, Councillors on the JHOSC can scrutinise how the ICB is managing its data responsibilities and not whether Trusts are/are not utilising the system to which the Chief Strategy Officer, ICB confirmed.
Councillor White expressed relief over the information provided regarding who would have to access the system and the data, however, on reflection of the post office scandal the provider was able to access information that they weren’t supposed to. Councillor White enquired over how we get assurance in view of the fact the data platform is provided by a large company not based in the UK. The Chief Strategy Officer responded and expressed that there is extensive due diligence, and the platform is bound by the laws in the UK and each Trust utilising the services should also be carrying out their own due diligence. Councillor White said ultimately, he was not re-assured that our data would be protected. Follow Up: The Chair concluded that once the information is retrieved by various Trusts on if they are using the platform, the next stage would be to contact NHS England and express concerns and seek re-assurances that our resident’s data was being protected.
Concillor Connor put a question to Haringey KONP about when Palantir Technology is mentioned whether the concern is that the data will be taken form from a secure data service. The Chair enquired about what evidence is being drawn on to highlight the concerns. Alan Norton expressed that there is concern but it isn’t based on any individual information but is based on the owners of these companies. Europe is trying to set up their own alternative – Eurostack. Mr Norton also reported that Palantir also acquired a contract from the Ministry of Defence without any competition and herein lies the problem.
Councillor Revah agreed with Councillor White’s comments and sought clarity around digital inclusion as not everyone has a smart phone, and this could lead to a significant number of people falling through the gap. The Chief Strategy Officer confirmed that face-to-face and letter communication was still in place and also needs to be improved alongside the development of neighbourhood working.
Councillor Edwards enquired about what kind of information companies may wish to access and what could be the penalties they could possibly face. The Chief Strategy Officer explained through cloud service data is stored and stays within the UK for the Trusts, there are specific controls and UK law and the ICB has a data access committee which provides oversight.
The Chair thanked the deputation.