Category Archives: Society

European Court, Government, Legal, Society

ECHR ruling: Intelligence agencies can harvest data

PERSONAL DATA COLLECTION

Controversial powers that have been used by British spies to hoover up vast amounts of personal information to help foil major terrorist plots do not automatically breach human rights, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled.

It said UK intelligence agencies could scoop up data belonging to millions of citizens if there were proper safeguards and supervision.

Judges said harvesting and storing data on the websites people visited, who they called, texted or emailed, and their medical, tax and financial records was not “in and of itself” unlawful.

The ruling will be a boost to the Government, which says collecting “bulk data” and communications information has been crucial in preventing jihadist plots.

Ministers brought in the Investigatory Powers Act last year to tighten up the UK’s use of sweeping surveillance powers and introduced new oversights.

However, the ECHR found that the previous spying regime – exposed by Edward Snowden’s revelations about intelligence techniques – did violate human rights.

In 2013, Mr Snowden revealed that GCHQ, the UK’s eavesdropping agency, had been secretly collecting communications sent over the internet on an industrial scale.

The ECHR judgment said the system did not have any proper safeguards because it led to completely “untargeted” collection of information.

It ruled this had violated Article 8 and Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights – safeguarding privacy and confidential journalistic material.

The court’s ruling related to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act which was replaced by the new Act at the start of 2017.

The court acknowledged that this act makes significant changes to the interception and communications data regimes, though critics call it a “turbocharged snoopers’ charter”.

The British Government has said it would give “careful consideration” to the ruling.

Standard
Britain, Economic, Financial Markets, Government, Politics, Society

The real crisis of capitalism

ECONOMIC

THE past week has been a time for recalling the events of September 2008, their long shadow over the economics and politics of the past ten years and for drawing the right lessons for the future.

In particular, did the financial crisis prove that capitalism is fundamentally unstable and that a new model involving greater control and a much bigger role for the state, as favoured by Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party, is a better one? Or, the fact that the guilty men and women mainly got away with it, meant that public anger over the crisis was never assuaged?

We should understand that the financial crisis did not begin on the weekend of September 13-14, 2008, which saw frantic but unsuccessful efforts to save Lehman Brothers, the Wall Street investment bank. The crisis had been simmering for well over a year, a period that saw the run on Northern Rock and the start of Britain’s deepest recession in the post-war period.

The bankruptcy of Lehman, announced on September 15, turned a smouldering crisis into a ravaging forest fire that spread rapidly around the world. Banks were bailed-out by free-market governments using public funds. Alongside near-zero interest rates, central banks including the Bank of England did things they never would have contemplated in normal circumstances, most notably quantitative easing (or the printing of free money). Governments spent vast sums of money that ran into the billions boosting their economies to ease the impact of the crisis, but on the basis that they would cut back later. Austerity, on a scale and duration not seen in this country since the Geddes axe of the 1920s, was the course chosen by the coalition government in 2010.

 

MOST of what people think they know about the past decade is wrong. The danger in 2008 was of a prolonged period of deflation – falling prices and economic depression, a modern version of the 1930s. The reality is that both were avoided. After the shock of the crisis the economy grew more slowly than had been the norm, but it grew. All advanced economies were afflicted by weaker growth.

Income inequality in Britain has fallen since the crisis, not least because the burden of tax faced by the highest earners has increased. This financial year, 2018-19, the top 1% will pay almost 28% of all income tax, compared with just over 24% in 2007-08, paying £12bn a year more in tax than before the near meltdown. The top 10% accounts for 59.7% of all income tax revenues, up from 54.3%.

Austerity, as practised by the coalition led by David Cameron and now by a Tory minority government under Theresa May, was never about shrinking the size of the state for ideological reasons. The coalition’s mantra before the crisis was that after the spending splurge under Gordon Brown, the “proceeds of growth” would in future be shared between tax cuts and increased public spending.

Even faced with the task of reducing an out-of-control budget deficit, Mr Cameron ring-fenced NHS spending and imposed a target of spending 0.7% of gross national income on foreign aid. A better criticism of Tory austerity is that too much of it involved cuts to government investment and that the process has dragged on for too long, partly because it was leavened with tax cuts, mostly for working people.

 

THE financial crisis and its aftermath were painful but too many Tories seem to have been cowed by it from making a robust case for capitalism. This leaves the way open for Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell, Labour’s anti-capitalist chancellor. When a privatised rail company messes up, or a housebuilding boss is awarded a bonus running into tens of millions of pounds, there is rightly an outcry. The crisis itself was the product, yes, of many greedy bankers and a few in handcuffs might have satisfied public opinion, but it was also the consequence of regulators whose job it was to stop them failing. In many cases, including the recent collapse of Carillion, many of these problems arise at the interface between the public and private sector.

Of course, we all want to return to a time when living standards are rising at a decent pace. That will be achieved only when productivity growth also returns to something approaching past norms. Capitalism in Britain has, since the crisis, delivered something like seven times the number of new jobs as those cut by the public sector. Unemployment is at its lowest since the mid-1970s. It is the private sector, not failed prescriptions of anti-capitalism, that will deliver prosperity in the future.

 

Standard
Biotechnology, Government, Health, Medical, Science, Society

Genomic medicine is being blocked by the NHS

NHS: GENOMIC MEDICINE

THIS MONTH the NHS will become the first health service in the world to offer whole genome sequencing to patients where clinically appropriate. Heralded by NHS leaders as “a new era of genomic health”, the goal is to use these data and new technologies to decode and treat previously intractable diseases, to move away from symptomatic treatments to cures and prevention.

The Prime Minister has said she wants the UK to lead the world in this new area of science – to continue a tradition of innovation in this country that will “extend horizons and transform lives”.

Theresa May’s ambition to lead the world in genomics and precision medicines is one that we should all want to support. Scientists and doctors know that pioneering precision medicines and their advances change lives, but they will also be aware of the challenges that must be overcome to realise its potential. This is not necessarily because the science is lacking, but because a fundamental shift in thinking is still needed by governments, regulators and policymakers in how they assess the value of this innovation.

Cystic fibrosis (CF) is an excellent example of this challenge. In 1989, when the cystic fibrosis gene was first identified, scientists did not know how mutations in the gene caused the condition. There was nothing to treat the underlying cause of the disease and people could only seek treatment for their symptoms.

After nearly 20 years of research and development by hundreds of scientists, and the design, synthesis and testing of more than 400,000 unique molecules, they have now done what was once thought impossible – discovered and brought to nearly half of all CF patients the first medicines to treat the underlying cause of this devastating disease. Today, multiple medicines approved by the EU and U.S. now exist, and there are more coming down the line. The ultimate goal is to cure CF once and for all.

For this remarkable cycle of innovation to be completed, Governments must now play their part, by providing patients with access to these medicines. Three years after approval of these medicines, this has still not happened because scientific innovation is outpacing the UK medicines evaluation system.

The evaluation criteria and processes used by the NHS and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) are currently preventing them from being made available to patients. Despite universal acceptance of the benefits that these medicines will bring, people in the UK have been waiting for access for more than 1,000 days, while thousands of people with CF in other countries in Europe and the US have been benefiting from them for years.

CF patients don’t really have the time to wait. Half of those with this cruel disease will die before they are 31. Science has delivered the breakthroughs, but the system is blocking access. The UK has the second largest number of CF patients in the world.

In 2016, the UK’s own chief medical officer recommended a fundamental shift in how new transformative medicines are developed and appraised for use in healthcare systems. The appraisal system in the UK needs to reflect that the genes and pathways underlying genetic diseases seldom respond to traditional pharmaceutical approaches, and so precision medicine requires risk-taking innovation.

The Life Sciences Industrial Strategy, a report made to the Government just last year, echoes many of these sentiments. It outlines the need for industry to take on bold, far-sighted ambitions in the life sciences with the intention of creating commercial success, underpinned by novel technology and higher-risk science. The strategy singles out a handful of successful biotech companies with highly innovative products. Yet, unlike in many other European countries, the NHS and NICE have not yet followed these recommendations and evolved their evaluation criteria for these types of transformative precision medicines.

The Government must surely need to act, not just for more than 10,000 people currently living with CF in the UK, but also for people suffering from many other kinds of genetic diseases.

Genomic medicine stands on the cusp of becoming an everyday reality. Those institutions at the cutting edge of gene therapy and gene editing need a system that is already thinking about the innovations of tomorrow. Such systems need to incentivise innovators to get medicines into the hands of patients as soon as possible.

Organisations involved in scientific advances will never give up on their ambition to cure serious diseases that today might still seem impossible to tackle. While they continue to deliver on the science, the UK Government must show its commitment to biomedical innovation if the genomic revolution is to be fully realised.

Standard